The Homiliary of Paul the Deacon: Religious and Cultural Reform in Carolingian Europe (Sermo) 9782503577913, 2503577911

Table of contents :
Front Matter
Introduction
Chapter I. Curae nobis est. The Manuscript Witnesses and Paul’s Text
Chapter II. Per totius anni circulum. Paul’s Liturgical Year
Chapter III. En iutus patris Benedicti. The Composition of the Homiliary
Chapter IV. Per sacra domicilia Christi. The Dissemination of the Homiliary
Chapter V. Optima decerpens. The Theology of Paul’s Collection
Chapter VI. Tradimus. The Use of Paul’s Homiliary
Conclusion
Appendices
Back Matter

Citation preview

The Homiliary of Paul the Deacon

SERMO

STUDIES ON PATRISTIC, MEDIEVAL, AND  REFORMATION SERMONS AND PREACHING

Volume 16

Editor Regina D. Schiewer, Katholische Universität Eichstätt-Ingolstadt Editorial Board Roger Andersson, Stockholms universitet Jussi Hanska, Tampereen yliopisto (Tampere University) Thom Mertens, Universiteit Antwerpen Franco Morenzoni, Université de Genève Veronica O’Mara, University of Hull Anne Thayer, Lancaster Theological Seminary

Previously published volumes in this series are listed at the back of the book.

The Homiliary of Paul the Deacon Religious and Cultural Reform in Carolingian Europe

by

Zachary Guiliano

F

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

© 2021, Brepols Publishers n.v., Turnhout, Belgium. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher. ISBN: 978–2-503–57791-3 e-ISBN: 978–2-503–57792-0 DOI: 10.1484/M.SERMO-EB.5.114192 ISSN: 1784–8806 e-ISSN: 2295–2764 Printed in the EU on acid-free paper. D/2021/0095/86

Table of Contents List of Illustrations

9

Acknowledgements 11 Abbreviations 14 Patristic Texts in Paul’s Homiliary: Abbreviation Style

16

Manuscript Descriptions: Origin, Date, Provenance

18

Introduction 19 0.1. The Homiliary in Scholarship: 22 Editions and Reconstructions 0.2. The Homiliary in Scholarship: 28 The Nature of the Epistola Generalis 0.3. The Homiliary in Scholarship: The History of Preaching 32 0.4. The Homiliary in Scholarship: Anglo-Saxon England 37 0.5. Manu­script Studies and the Advent of Digital Research 39 0.6. The Carolingian Witnesses to Paul’s Homiliary 41 0.7. Outline of the Book’s Argument 42 Chapter 1 Curae nobis est: The Manu­script Witnesses and Paul’s Text 1.1. The Manu­script Base 1.2. General Features of the Extant Manu­scripts 1.3. The Witnesses Transmitting the Prefatory Material and Carolingian Witnesses 1.4. The Original Structure of Paul’s Homiliary: The Winter Volume 1.5. The Winter Portion: Contested Entries 1.6. The Original Structure of Paul’s Homiliary: The Summer Volume 1.7. Conclusion Chapter 2 Per totius anni circulum: Paul’s Liturgical Year 2.1. ‘Individual Sundays and the Remaining Feasts’ 2.2. The Sanctoral Cycle 2.3. The Purpose of a Limited Sanctoral Cycle

45 45 49 50 52 56 59 66 67 67 70 72

6

ta b l e of con ten ts

2.4. ‘Diverse Fasts’ and Other Occasions 2.5. The Greater and Lesser Litanies 2.6. In traditione symboli: Catechesis and Creed in Lent 2.7. Anniversaries of Death 2.8. The Sundays after Pentecost 2.9. Paul’s Work, the Christian Year, and the Influence of Other Liturgical Books 2.10. A Specific Liturgical Year? 2.11. Conclusion 2.12. Outline of the Winter Volume: The Fifth Sunday before Christmas to Holy Saturday 2.13. Outline of the Summer Volume (A): Easter to Saint Matthew 2.14. Outline of the Summer Volume (B): Commune sanctorum (the Common of Saints) Chapter 3 En iutus patris Benedicti: The Composition of the Homiliary 3.1. The Representation of Paul’s Work in the Homiliary’s Preface 3.2. The Homiliary’s Organizational Features: Rubrics, Readings, Authors 3.3. The Collection’s Contents: Homilies and Sermons from Surprising Fathers 3.4. The Origins of Paul’s Texts and the State of Carolingian Libraries 3.5. A Wandering Monk? Paul on the Road and in the Scriptorium 3.6. Conclusion: Paul and Patronage, Earthly and Heavenly 3.7. Postscript: Dating Paul’s Collection Chapter 4 Per sacra domicilia Christi: The Dissemination of the Homiliary 4.1. The Epistola Generalis and Dissemination 4.2. Capitulary Legislation and the Homiliary’s Dissemination 4.3. Manu­script Production: The Physical Constraints on Dissemination 4.4. Difficulties for ‘Mass Production’: The Example of Tours, the Setting of the Court 4.5. Literary Evidence for Dissemination

74 76 77 79 80 81 82 84 85 86 89 91 92 103 107 110 113 117 118 123 125 127 127 132 137

ta ble of contents

4.6. Manu­script Evidence (A): Twenty-Two Clear Palaeo­graphical Identifications, Twelve Unclear 4.7. Manu­script Evidence (B): Transmission of Textual Variants Implies Further Copies 4.8. Key Textual Variants in the Summer Volume 4.9. Key Textual Variants in the Winter Volume 4.10. Paul’s Two Volumes often Circulated Separately 4.11. Conclusion Chapter 5 Optima decerpens: The Theo­logy of Paul’s Collection 5.1. The Emphases of the Collection: Gospel Exegesis, Doctrinal Sermons 5.2. The Bible in Paul’s Collection: Texts and Theory 5.3. The Admonitio Generalis and Carolingian Theo­logy 5.4. God the Trinity: Foundations 5.5. Definitions of the Trinitarian Relations 5.6. Christo­logy and Chalcedon 5.7. Looser Christo­logical Formulations: Origen and Maximus II 5.8. Preparing for the End: Eschato­logy a Constant Theme 5.9. Ethics and Imitation 5.10. Specific Ethical Practices: Fasting, Confession, Almsgiving, Care for the Dead 5.11. Conclusion Chapter 6 Tradimus: The Use of Paul’s Homiliary 6.1. Crafting New Collections 6.2. Amplified Homiliaries 6.3. Abbreviated Homiliaries 6.4. Cases of Extraction 6.5. Abbreviated Readings 6.6. Decorated Texts 6.7. Private Study and Meditation 6.8. Preaching and Regulatory Material (Capitularies, Councils, Statutes, Rules) 6.9. Preaching and the Manu­script Evidence 6.10. Liturgical Reading 6.11. Liturgical Reading and Manu­script Evidence 6.12. Other Uses: Storing Prayers and Community Memory 6.13. Conclusion

147 151 153 156 161 161 163 164 168 174 176 178 181 184 188 192 195 196 199 201 201 209 214 216 217 225 230 234 236 239 242 243

7

8

ta b l e of con ten ts

Conclusion 245 Appendix 1 Paul’s Dedicatory Verse, Summo apici rerum

251

Appendix 2 Charlemagne’s Prefatory Letter, the Epistola Generalis

255

Appendix 3 The Descriptive Introduction, Incipiunt omeliae

259

Appendix 4 Paul’s Laudatory Verse, Utere felix (c. 800) 261 Appendix 5 A Handlist of Witnesses to Paul the Deacon’s Homiliary

263

Biblio­graphy

301

Index of Manuscripts

325

General Index

333

List of Illustrations Figures Figure 1. Rubrics, Gospel pericope, and homily, BLB, MS Aug. perg. 29 (Reichenau, s. ix2/4), fol. 12r

106

Figure 2. Decoration at beginning of Paul’s homiliary, BLB, MS Aug. perg. 29 (Reichenau, s. ix2/4), fol. 6r

218

Figure 3. Four ‘S’ initials from Reichenau and St Gall

220

Figure 4. Gold-leaf initial, BLB, MS Aug. perg. 16 (Reichenau, s. x1/2), fol. 128r

222

Map Map 1. Locations of PD production or use

150

Stemmata Stemma 1. Summer witnesses (selection)

155

Stemma 2. Winter witnesses (selection)

159

Tables Table 1. Manu­scripts with the preface to Paul’s homiliary

51

Table 2. Comparative table for the winter portion of Paul’s homiliary

58

Table 3. Comparison of post-Pentecost Gospel pericopes

61

Table 4. Comparative table for the summer volume

64

Table 5. PD content proportions by Paul’s attribution

108

Table 6. PD content proportions by modern identification

108

Table 7. Paul’s sources in Carolingian libraries

111

10

l i s t of i l lustr ation s

Table 8. PD manu­script production measurements listed according to volume

129

Table 9. Animal skins used per volume of PD, calculated by bifolium

131

Table 10. Literary references to PD locations

147

Table 11. Palaeo­graphical identifications of PD witnesses

148

Table 12. Combined references to PD locations

149

Table 13. Circulation of intellectual elite in places where PD was known

228

Acknowledgements In this mono­graph, I argue that Paul the Deacon completed his homiliary with the support of a vast network of friends, supporters, and patrons, earthly and heavenly. Throughout my research, I have been aware of the many faithful people and friends whose encouragement and prayers have aided me, even at a distance. If I forget to thank anyone, it is a testament to the amount of aid I have received from so many. My family has patiently endured my travels and absences for many years. My aunt Janet and uncle Steve have been especially helpful and gracious in providing hospitality, whenever I have travelled near their homes in the Val d’Anniviers or Chicago. My parishes, Little St Mary’s and St Bene’t’s, Cam­ bridge, have provided much support during those doctoral years, into my first years as deacon and then priest, and amid a prolonged period of illness. And, of course, I owe my life and every good thing to the grace of God and the intercession of his saints. My thanks to the Revd Canon Prof. Sarah Foot and Prof. Maximilian Diesenberger for their care and patience in reading this mono­graph. As Paul the Deacon wrote to Charlemagne upon the completion of his homiliary: ‘In quo si quid labis erit uitiique nocentis | Illud uestra sagax nimium sapientia purget.’ The Gates Cam­bridge Trust supported my doctoral work at the Uni­ver­sity of Cam­bridge. I must acknowledge the financial assistance of many others: the Master and Fellows of St John’s College for grants from the Learning & Research Fund, a prize from the Scullard Fund, and a Choral Scholarship in St John’s Voices; the Cam­bridge History Faculty for a grant from the Lightfoot Fund; and the Biblio­graphical Society, which offered extraordinary support in the form of two minor grants and a major grant. I relied greatly on the assistance of library staff around Europe, and must record my gratitude to staff in many locations: in London, the British Library; in Cam­bridge, numerous staff at the Uni­ver­sity Library and the Seeley, and especially Patricia Aske, the librarian of Pembroke College, Scott Mandelbrote, librarian at Peterhouse, Philippa Grimstone, the sub-librarian at Magdalene College, and the library staff at St John’s College; in Oxford, staff at the Bodleian Library and James Fishwick at Magdalen College’s library. For his extraordinary help in supplying information, assistance, and access, I must thank Dr John Hodgson of the John Rylands Library in Manchester. My thanks to Dr Rèmy Cordonnier at the Bibliothèque d’Agglomération de Saint Omer for his gracious welcome. My special gratitude to Clotilde Herbert at the Pôle Patrimoine de la Médiathèque d’agglomération de Cambrai for opening early in (and enduring!) the July heat to allow me additional time

12

ack n owl e d g e m e n t s

to work. Similar thanks are due to the staff at the Bibliothèque municipale in Valenciennes, the Médiathèque Gambetta d’Orléans, the Bibliothèque Carnegie de Reims, the Médiathèque du Grand Troyes, the Médiathèque Toussaint in Angers, the Médiathèque l’Apostrophe in Chartres, the Archives Départementales de Vaucluse, Avignon, the Bibliothèque nationale de France, and the Bibliothèque Mazarine. My thanks also to the Fondation Martin Bodmer in Co­logny, the Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek in Darmstadt, the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek in Munich, and especially to Arietta Ruß of the Württembergische Landesbibliothek in Stuttgart for her special assistance, given my limited German. My time in Italy was marked by special hospitality. Dom Mariano Dell’Omo, the archivist at the Abbey of Monte Cassino, was gracious and accommodating as I continued to request some of the greatest and heaviest treasures of that holy place. Similarly, the staff and fellows of the British School at Rome provided much needed hospitality and conversation in English after several weeks of international travel. My thanks too to the staff of the Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana. When I could not travel, I requested images, and here record my thanks to imaging staff at several libraries: the Beinecke Rare Books Library at Yale Uni­ver­sity; the Lilly Library at Bloomington State Uni­ver­sity; the Herzog August Biblio­thek, Wolfenbüttel; the Universitätsbibliothek, Freiburg im Breisgau; the Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek Düsseldorf; the Bibliothèque municipale in Autun; the Badische Landesbibliothek in Karlsruhe; the Swiss e-codices project; and the Kantonsbibliothek in Chur. Many colleagues commented on my work, provided advance drafts of their own writing, or otherwise benefited me through conversation and dialogue. It would be impossible to list them all, so a few must suffice: Melissa Markauskas, Rodney Thomson, Christopher Heath, Erik Kwakkel, Mayke de Jong, Walter Pohl, Ian Wood, Tessa Webber, David Ganz, Susan Rankin, Henry Parkes, Jesse Keskiaho, Bernhard Zeller, Benjamin Pohl, Giovanni Varelli, Arthur Westwell, Stephen Ling, and Anna Dorofeeva. To Rosamond McKitterick, who was unflagging in her support for this project while my research supervisor, I cannot express my gratitude enough. She pored over various drafts, offered incisive comments, pointed me towards funding and conferences, and did all that one might hope for from a supervisor. But I am most grateful for our first conversation, when she met with me in her offices at Sidney Sussex College on a bright summer day in 2011. To Shari Boodts and Riccardo Macchioro, many thanks for comments and suggestions at the commencement of the PASSIM project. To the whole team at Brepols, my thanks for your patience with a project that took far longer than I had hoped! In the final stages of editing, Deborah A. Oosterhouse and Martine Maguire-Weltecke saved me from many embarassing errors. To Melissa, my wife of so many years now: we have been on this journey for a long time. When we first talked about moving to the United Kingdom to

ack now le d ge me nt s

study, we didn’t know everything that would entail: all the travel, late nights, and work; the mountains of books, the good-byes, the new friends, the endless house moves, the terrible jobs, the often grim realities of immigration around Brexit, and even a plague called COVID-19; not to mention all the small and great difficulties and sorrows, all the happiness and laughter. What I know is that I could not have done this work alone; I would not even have tried. This work is dedicated to you, my joy, my friend, my heart. Whatever faults remain in this book are the result of its author’s oversight, not the many gracious friends who have made it possible. Zachary Guiliano Oxford The Feast of the Annunciation, 25 March 2021

13

Abbreviations All works are cited in full in the biblio­graphy; the following are abbreviated throughout the text. AF homiliary of Alan of Farfa BAV Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana BLB Karlsruhe, Badische Landesbibliothek BM Bibliothèque municipale BnF Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France BSB Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek Clm Codices latini monacensis CCSL Corpus Christianorum Series Latina (Turnhout, 1952–) CLA Codices latini antiquiores: A Palaeo­graphical Guide to Latin Manu­scripts prior to the Ninth Century, 11 vols plus Supplement (Oxford, 1935–71) CSG St Gall, Stiftsbibliothek, Codices Sangallensis CSS Cistercian Studies Series DHK F. Wiegand, Das Homiliarium Karls des Grossen auf seine ursprüngliche Gestalt hin untersucht, Studien zur Geschichte der Theo­logie und der Kirche, 1.2 (Leipzig, 1897) GPD Grégoire and Wiegand reconstruction of Paul the Deacon’s homiliary LHMA R. Grégoire, Les Homéliaires du Moyen Âge: Inventaire et analyse des manuscrits, Rerum ecclesiasticarum documenta, Series maior, Fontes, 6 (Rome, 1966) HLM R. Grégoire, Homéliares liturgiques médiévaux: Analyse de manu­scrits, Studi medi­evali, 12 (Spoleto, 1980) HPL R. Étaix, Homéliaires patristiques latins: Recueil d’études de manu­scrits médiévaux. Offert par la Faculté de théo­logie de Lyon à l’occasion de son départ à la retraite, Collection des études Augustiniennes, Série Moyen-Âge et temps modernes, 29 (Paris, 1994)

ab b re vi at i o ns

Katalog B.  Bischoff, Katalog der festländischen Handschriften des neunten Jahrhunderts (mit Ausnahme der wisigotischen), ed. by B. Ebersberger, Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für die Herausgabe der mittel­alterlichen Bibliothekskataloge Deutschlands und der Schweiz, 4 vols (Wiesbaden, 1998–2017) Man. datés C. Samaran and R. Marichale, Catalogue des manuscrits en écriture latine portant des indications de date, de lieu ou de copiste, 7 vols (Paris, 1959–84) MGH Monumenta Germaniae Historica Capit. episc. Capitula episcoporum Conc. Concilia Epp. Epistolae Poetae Poetae Latini medii aevi SS Scriptores NCMH, ii New Cam­bridge Medi­eval History, vol. ii: 700–900, ed. by R. McKitterick (Cam­bridge, 1995) Neff, Gedichte K. Neff, Gedichte des Paulus Diaconus: Kritische und erklärende Ausgabe, Quellen und Untersuchung zur lateinischen Philo­ logie des Mittelalters, 2.4 (Munich, 1908) PD homiliary of Paul the Deacon, specifically my new numbering system PL Patro­logia cursus completus, series Latina, ed. by J.-P. Migne, 221 vols (Paris, 1841–64) PLS Patro­logia latina supplementum, ed. by A. Hamman (Paris, 1958–74) RBen Revue Bénédictine ‘Repertoire’ R. Étaix, ‘Repertoire des homéliaires conservés en France (hors la Bibliothèque nationale)’, in R. Étaix, Homéliaires patristiques latins: Recueil d’études de manuscrits médiévaux. Offert par la Faculté de théo­logie de Lyon à l’occasion de son départ à la retraite, Collection des études Augustiniennes, Série Moyen-Âge et Temps modernes, 29 (Paris, 1994), pp. 3–58 Schreibsch. B. Bischoff, Die südostdeutschen Schreibschulen und Bibliotheken in der Karolingerzeit, 2 vols (Wiesbaden, 1960–80)

15

Patristic Texts in Paul’s Homiliary Abbreviation Style

References to the patristic texts in Paul the Deacon’s homiliary are necessarily lengthy, in order to refer to the number of the entry in my reconstruction of Paul’s homiliary, the number of the entry in the Grégoire/Wiegand reconstruction, the liturgical rubric, the author, the text, and an abbreviated reference to the relevant translation, critical edition, or the PL. Citation of a page number indicates reference to a translation. Citation of a line or column number indicates reference to an edition. The liturgical rubrics are included to help identify the occasions to which they are assigned. These rubrics are taken from Gregoire’s Homéliares liturgiques médiévaux, although the rubrics found in early manu­scripts of Paul’s work frequently differ from what he provided. Most of the differences are minor (e.g. the use of Ebdomada instead of Dominica; or Theophaniam instead of Epiphaniam), but some are significant. I use Gregoire’s rubrics here to make reference between my work and his reconstruction simpler, until I can finish a more detailed reconstruction to replace his entry in HLM. The style of reference for a translation is: PD II:16, In Pascha annotina (GPD II:16), Bede, Homelia II.18 (216). The style of reference for a critical edition is: PD I:62, In octavas Theophaniae (GPD I:58), Bede, Homelia I.12 (ll. 35–138). The style of reference for the PL is: PD I:23, Item cuius supra de natale domini (GPD I:22), Ps-Maximus, Homilia 12 (PL, 57:248C). Editions and translations referenced in this manner include: Augustine ‘Homilies on the Gospel of John’, trans. by J. Gibb and J. Innes, in St Augustine: Homilies on the Gospel of John; Homilies on the First Epistle of John; Soliloquies, ed. by P. Schaff, Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, 1.7 (Edinburgh, 1888; repr. Peabody, MA, 1995), pp. 7–452 Bede Homeliae euangelii, ed. by D. Hurst, CCSL, 122 (Turnhout, 1955) Homilies on the Gospels, trans. by L. Martin and D. Hurst, CSS, 110–11, 2 vols (Kalamazoo, MI, 1991)

pat r i s t i c t e x ts i n pau l’s ho mi li ary

Bede (cont.) In Lucae euangelium expositio, ed. by D. Hurst, CCSL, 119A (Turnhout, 1960), pp. 1–425 In Marci euangelium expositio, ed. by D. Hurst, CCSL, 119A (Turnhout, 1960), pp. 427–648 Gregory Homeliae in evangelia, ed. by R. Étaix, CCSL, 141 (Turnhout, 1999) Forty Gospel Homilies, trans. by D. Hurst, CSS, 123 (Kalamazoo, MI, 1990) Leo Tractatus septem et nonaginta, ed. by A. Chavasse, CCSL, 138A (Turnhout, 1973) The Letters and Sermons of Leo the Great, Bishop of Rome, trans. and introd. by C. L. Feltoe, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2.12 (Edinburgh, 1895; repr. Peabody, MA 1995) Maximus Maximi Episcopi Taurinensis Sermonum collectio antiqua, nonnullis sermonibus extravagantibus adiectis, ed. by A. Mützenbecher, CCSL, 23 (Turnhout, 1962) The Sermons of St Maximus of Turin, trans. by B. Ramsey, Ancient Christian Fathers, 50 (New York, 1989) Maximus II Homiliae, in PL, 57:221–530A (often labelled Pseudo-Maximus) Sermones, in PL, 57:531–760B (often labelled Pseudo-Maximus) Origen Origenes Werke, vols x–xii: Origenes Matthäuserklärung, ed. by E. Klostermann with E. Benze, Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte, 38 and 40–41 (Leipzig, 1933–55) Ps-Augustine Legimus sanctum Moysen populo Dei, in PL, 39:2196–98 Ps-John Chrysostom Collectio Escurialensis, in PLS, 4 The PL and PLS editions of Ps-Augustine, Ps-John Chrysostom, and Ps-Maximus are corrupt, and I have thus made frequent reference to the Latin texts in the manu­scripts consulted for this thesis. I still provide reference to the PL, but the Latin texts cited in this volume occasionally differ.

17

Manuscript Descriptions Origin, Date, Provenance

In describing manuscripts, I have always sought to provide an origin and date, even if they are approximate. As much as possible, I distinguish between a manuscript’s origin (i.e. its place of production) and its provenance (i.e. where it was used or held at a later date). Often, these are the same location, but we cannot always be sure, and manuscripts frequently traveled. In the case of CSG 431, it was made in the monastery of St Gall between 850 and 872, and was used primarily within that monastery. I have described it as CSG 431 (St Gall, 850x872). However, in cases where I am not certain or where the origin and provenance may differ, I have indicated this with a distinction. For example, Reims, Bibliothèque Carnegie, MS 296.2 (Reims, s. x1/2; provenance St Thierry) or BnF, MS lat. 12404 (Tours, ixmed; provenance St Germain-des-Prés). An ‘x’ within a date range indicates that a manuscript was made within that timeframe, without committing to a precise date or the amount of time taken to produce the manuscript. Thus Cambridge, Peterhouse, MS 130 (1145x1153) indicates that the manuscript was made sometime between 1145 and 1153.

Introduction The homiliary of Paul the Deacon has long been praised for its illustrious origin and celebrated reception. According to the homiliary’s preface, the letter of Charlemagne commonly called the Epistola Generalis, it was compiled as part of Charlemagne’s attempt at reforming the quality of readings used during daily prayer. His intention was that the state of the churches for which he felt responsible might be bettered and their life ‘decorated’ by such an exercise of royal care.1 This self-consciously new effort of ecclesiastical governance combined royal initiative, resources, and authority with the expertise of the Lombard scholar Paul the Deacon. It was justified as a necessary remedy to the neglect of previous generations. They had not maintained the ‘litterarum […] officina’ (workshop of letters), Charlemagne claimed, and biblical and patristic texts had suffered as a result. Collections of patristic readings compiled for use in public prayer were ‘strewn with infinite rounds of textual corruption’, put forth ‘without including the names of their authors’, and filled with ‘dissonant solecisms’, a fact Charlemagne could not tolerate. He commissioned Paul the Deacon to read through the tracts and sermons of the Church Fathers and to select the best of what he found, ‘pick[ing] out from their most expansive meadows certain flowers’. The result was a carefully edited collection, gathered into two volumes and given the seal of royal approval. The collection is thought to have enjoyed a large circulation and influence after its initial dissemination in the Carolingian era. Some later medi­eval chroniclers remembered it as a great effort of Charlemagne’s reign, indeed, as a major event of world history,2 and modern scholars have claimed that the collection served, with some significant changes and additions, as the primary source for patristic reading and study well beyond the Frankish kingdoms of the Carolingian era.3 They have argued for its use in various settings across the  1 See the new critical edition and translation of the Epistola Generalis and the homiliary’s other prefatory material that may be found in Appendices 1–4. Cf. Epistola Generalis, ed. by Boretius, pp. 80–81. The standard, though incomplete, English translation of the Epistola is in Charlemagne: Translated Sources, trans. by King, p. 208.  2 Bernold of Constance, Chronicon, ed. by Pertz, p. 418; and Sigebert of Gembloux, Chrono­ graphia, ed. by Bethmann, p. 336, cited in Glatthaar, ‘Zur Datierung der Epistola generalis Karls des Großen’, pp. 475 and 476. Sigebert, Chrono­graphia, p. 336, l. 64: ‘Karolus imperator per manum Pauli diaconi sui decerpens optima queque de scriptis catholicorum patrum, lectiones unicuique festivitati convenientes, per circulum anni in aecclesia legendas compilari fecit.’ Cf. the similar notices in Sigebert, De viris illustribus, c. 80–81, in PL, 160:565B; and Annales Dorenses 805, ed. by Waitz, p. 516.  3 Ranke, ‘Zur Geschichte des Homiliariums Karl’s des Grossen’; Morin, ‘Les Leçons apocryphes du Bréviaire romain’; DHK, pp. 1–4, 83–96; Manitius, Geschichte der lateinischen Literatur des Mittel­alters, i, 266–67; Barré, Les Homéliaires carolingiens de l’école d’Auxerre,

20

i n tro d uct i o n

whole of Europe: from the monasteries of the Cistercians and Carthusians to innumerable cathedrals to the royal court of Naples.4 Some scholars believe the homiliary played a considerable role in shaping the Western Gospel lectionary,5 and others have argued that it is a primary source for understanding early medi­eval preaching.6 Finally, the homiliary has a role in the development of medi­eval theo­logy and exegesis; it influenced the spiritual education and liturgical practices of many, such as the anonymous authors of some Norse and Anglo-Saxon sagas and homilies, as well as familiar figures like Ælfric of Eynsham, Hildegard of Bingen, and Martin Luther.7 Yet, despite the apparent clarity of intention presented in the Epistola Generalis and the remarkable influence attributed to the collection by various scholars, concrete details regarding the early history of Paul the Deacon’s homiliary have been especially unclear until the present day. Basic questions remain unanswered, the summary answers ventured thus far have been heavily contested, and even the areas of scholarly consensus are not quite as certain as is thought. Fundamental work remains to be done. Where and how was the homiliary composed? What were its contents, and how were they arranged? To whom was the text sent and how? What are the ways this collection was used? The difficulty in obtaining answers regarding Paul’s work is due in part to the problem of termino­logy and the nature of the primary source material. To begin with, what do we mean by a ‘homiliary’ and how does Paul’s work fit into such a category? The label ‘homiliary’ stems partly from medi­eval use, although the precise moment when the type of text emerged is obscure, to say the least. The terms homiliarium, liber homeliarum, collectio homeliarum, and collectaneos

pp. 3–4; LHMA, pp. 6–7, 70–114; HLM, pp. 423–86, esp. pp. 423–27; Smetana, ‘Paul the Deacon’s Patristic Antho­logy’; Martimort, Les Lectures liturgiques et les livres, p. 87; Palazzo, A History of Liturgical Books, pp. 154–55.  4 E.g. Étaix, ‘Le Lectionnaire cartusien pour le réfectoire’; Grégoire, ‘L’Homéliaire cistercien du manuscrit 114 (82) de Dijon’; Waddell, ‘The Liturgical Dimension of Twelfth-Century Cistercian Preaching’, p. 342; Étaix, ‘Le “Smaragde” de Cordoue et autres manuscrits apparentés’; Richards, ‘Texts and their Traditions in the Medi­eval Library of Rochester Cathedral Priory’, pp. 86, 95. For the royal library of Naples, I refer to BnF, MS lat. 813 (Naples, 1472–92); De Marinis, La Biblioteca napoletana dei re d’Aragona, i, 74, and ii, 84 and 201–04.  5 Ranke, ‘Zur Geschichte des Homiliariums Karl’s des Grossen’, p. 383; Chavasse, ‘Les plus anciens types du lectionnaire et de l’antiphonaire romains de la messe’; Fassler, ‘Sermons, Sacramentaries, and Early Sources for the Office’, p. 35.  6 Marbach, Geschichte der deutschen Predigt vor Luther, p. 18. I discuss this issue in more detail below and in later chapters.  7 Smetana, ‘Ælfric and the Early Medi­eval Homiliary’; Gneuss, ‘Liturgical Books in AngloSaxon England and their Old English Termino­logy’, p. 123; Hall, ‘The Development of the Common of Saints in the Early English Versions of Paul the Deacon’s Homiliary’. For Hildegard, see Kienzle, Hildegard of Bingen and her Gospel Homilies, p. 67. For Luther, see Ranke, Das kirchliche Pericopensystem, p. 132; Ranke, ‘Zur Geschichte des Homiliariums Karl’s des Grossen’, pp. 382, 396; DHK, p. 4.

i nt ro d u ct i o n

(among others) appear in early medi­eval sources in the Carolingian period and were applied to a great variety of different works, including Paul’s, with little standardization of termino­logy until the modern period. Some of these works, particularly those stemming from Late Antiquity, were single-author compilations, containing only the sermons of Augustine or of Leo, organized at times haphazardly. But as time went on, great collections were made in various places containing the sermons and homilies of multiple authors. François Dolbeau has proposed that the term ‘collection’ (recueil) only apply to those manu­script witnesses of patristic sermons and homilies that gather their material in a rational fashion; moreover, he has proposed the following definition for the ‘homiliary’, which I find useful and would apply to Paul’s work: ‘Les homéliaires sont des recueils de sermons d’auteurs multiples, dont la structure est étroitement calquée sur le calendrier liturgiques, avec division éventuelle en deux parties: d’hiver et d’été’ (Homiliaries are collections of the sermons of multiple authors, whose structure is closely modelled on the liturgical calendar, with an eventual division into two parts: winter and summer).8 In referring to the collection Charlemagne commissioned and Paul compiled and edited as a homiliary, then, I am not only using a label that has been in place for many centuries but acknowledging its nature: It is a rationally organized collection of diverse material, ordered liturgically. (Of course, its creation and influence helped create the very genre Dolbeau describes and in which many scholars have placed it, but this is a topic for later pages.) Neither Charlemagne nor Paul gave the collection a formal title to which later generations might refer. Its prefatory materials refer to it variously, sometimes in circumlocution: as ‘the work’ or ‘labour’ stemming from Paul’s ‘eager heart’; as ‘that work’ of reform Charlemagne had long wished to finish, which he ‘ordered long ago’; as ‘a garland’ of ‘certain flowers’ from the works of the Church Fathers; as ‘two volumes’ of ‘readings without textual corruptions’.9 And so a mere handful of early medi­eval sources mention something like the following: ‘Collectaneos duos super anni circulo Pauli diaconi volumina II’ (Paul the Deacon’s two collections upon the circle of the year).10 Many early medi­eval sources for discussing the use of homiliaries in general or Paul’s collection in particular — hagio­graphies, capitularies, wills, records of donation, polyptychs, or library catalogues — fail to shed light, due to the general nature of their descriptions. Other evidence must be mustered.11 There are other problems as well. Since the early modern period, although scholars have made regular reference to Paul’s work, few had access to its  8 Dolbeau, ‘La Transmission de la Prédication Antique de langue latine’, p. 45. See also Dolbeau, ‘Naissance des Homéliaires et des passionnaires’. Similarly, see Hall, ‘The Early Medi­eval Sermon’, pp. 217–19.  9 See the editions and translations of the homiliary’s prefatory material in Appendices 1–4.  10 Gesta sanctorum patrum Fontanellensis coenobii, ed. by Lohier and Laporte, p. 104. Some chronicles that refer to a text as Paul’s work are noted in note 2, above.  11 See Chapter 4 for more details.

21

22

i n tro d uct i o n

earliest extant manu­script sources. Until the early 2000s, only ten ninth- and tenth-century manu­scripts were commonly cited.12 Most scholars have encountered the text through printed editions that drew on later medi­eval manu­scripts of varying quality, or they have approached it through summary reconstructions of its contents. Given the influence of such editions and reconstructions, I will survey them briefly before considering scholarship on the homiliary and, finally, the rich manu­script sources for relaunching an investigation of the homiliary’s history.

0.1. The Homiliary in Scholarship: Editions and Reconstructions Modern scholars are familiar with two primary reconstructions: first, that in J. P. Migne’s Patro­logia cursus completus, containing the Epistola Generalis of Charlemagne and some 299 patristic homilies and sermons, arranged in the order of the Christian liturgical year;13 and, second, the scholarly reconstruction based on the work of Friedrich Wiegand in 1897 and Reginald Grégoire in 1966 and 1980.14 Yet the homiliary has an interesting reception history in the transition between the Middle Ages and modernity, a history that shaped how scholars have reacted to the collection. Between 1478 and 1576, the homiliary of Paul the Deacon was printed at least fifteen times,15 and the editions differed from each other in a variety of ways. The homiliary’s author was often contested: some editions contained the letter of Charlemagne that designated Paul as the compiler,16 others claimed that the collection was made by Alcuin,17 and others left the author unnamed (Nuremberg, 1494; Basel, 1516). The binder of one copy of the 1478 Co­logne edition split the difference, titling it Alcuini vel Pauli Diaconi Homiliarum Doctorum (Alcuin or Paul the Deacon’s Homiliary of the Doctors).18 Editors presented these collections in different ways. The editions that contained the letter of Charlemagne gave some indication of their origin as a liturgical collection; some bore liturgical rubrics and prayers;19 others were  12  13  14  15

 16  17  18  19

E.g. Szarmach, ‘Vercelli Homily XIV and the Homiliary of Paul the Deacon’, p. 77. PL, 95:1159–1566. DHK, pp. 17–65; LHMA, pp. 70–114; HLM, pp. 423–86. Namely, those of Speyer (1482), Nuremberg (1494), Basel (1493, 1498, 1513, 1516, 1557, 1569), Lyon (1516), Co­logne (1478 (?), 1525), Paris (1537), and Co­logne II (1539, 1569, and 1576). DHK, pp. 66–67, listed six; HLM, p. 426, added three others. The Co­logne 1539, Basel 1557, and Co­logne 1576 editions are largely reprints of the Basel 1493 and Nuremberg 1494 Homeliarius doctorum edition, with some alterations. Mabillon, Vetera analecta, i, 18, mentions a 1557 Co­logne edition I have not yet found. Moreover, it transmits Paul’s Utere felix. E.g. the 1482 Speyer edition, several Basel editions, and the 1576 Co­logne edition. E.g. Paris (1537) and the Co­logne editions. Now Incunabula C.6.5 held in the Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale di Firenze. Cf. Chapter 6.

i nt ro d u ct i o n

described as collections providing model sermons from the ‘popular’ preaching of the Church Fathers for the occasions of the liturgical year: they were called conciones populorum or sermones populares.20 The early modern editions also bear the marks of their origin, reprinting, and reception near the time of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation. For instance, Cam­bridge, St John’s College, MS R.7.11, a copy of the 1516 Basel edition, has numerous signs of later Protestant ownership: all designations of St Gregory the Great as ‘Pope’ have been struck through with red ink. On the other hand, the 1569 Co­logne edition prepared by Laurenz Sauer, a Carthusian monk, was dedicated to Emperor Maximilian II. If the emperor read the homiliary, Sauer claimed, he would understand the errors of Luther and grasp the truth of Christian orthodoxy. He would also see the necessity for reforming preaching, as Charlemagne had.21 This cursory survey of early editions shows that a fuller study of the modern reception of Paul’s homiliary could find rich resources in extant incunabula. Yet, fascinating as these details are, the problem these editions present for those interested in Paul’s original work is precisely their differences, both in what they claim to be and in their structure. All the editions are amplified and adapted versions of the homiliary, but the manner of their amplification and adaptation varies, and the early modern printers rarely indicated their manu­script sources. Jean Mabillon first drew attention to this historical problem. In 1675 he noted that the early modern editions not only differ from each other, but often contain sermons from authors who wrote well after Paul’s death (c. ad 800), such as Heiric of Auxerre (841–876). Mabillon suggested instead that the original work of Paul might be found in some manu­script witnesses he had seen in the Abbey of Reichenau. He noted especially their preservation of what appeared to be the earliest copy of the homiliary’s prefatory materials, including Charlemagne’s Epistola Generalis, Paul’s dedicatory verse, a descriptive introduction of the homiliary, and tables of content.22 Unfortunately, though, the manu­scripts were dispersed in the first secularization of the monastery (1757), and their location was unknown to most scholars through much of the eighteenth century and for the first half of the nineteenth century.23 Ernst Ranke undertook an initial, lengthy search for these manu­scripts in the 1840s while studying the development of the Gospel lectionary in the Latin West. He had not found them by the conclusion of his study, but in his published work, he claimed that Paul’s homiliary exercised an enduring influence upon the Western Gospel lectionary. Not only was it influential

 20 E.g. Homilie hoc est Conciones populares sanctissimorum ecclesie doctorum.  21 Homiliae in totius anni evangelia ab Alcuino collectae, ed. by Sauer, preface.  22 Mabillon, Vetera analecta, i, 18. For this history of scholarship, see also DHK, pp. 1–2; and Smetana, ‘Paul the Deacon’s Patristic Antho­logy’, p. 75.  23 Despite a notice in Gerbert, Vetus liturgia Alemannica, cited in DHK, p. 1.

23

24

i n tro d uct i o n

in the early Middle Ages, he said, but Martin Luther followed its course of readings rather than those of the contemporary Roman Missal.24 I have not been able to determine the basis of Ranke’s claims. It was only in the 1850s that he finally encountered early homiliary witnesses in Karlsruhe (well after his publication on Gospel lectionaries) and identified them as the manu­scripts Mabillon had consulted. Those consulted by Ranke are still in the Badische Landesbibliothek of Karlsruhe.25 Ranke announced his discovery in a brief article, detailing not only the promise of these manu­scripts, but also their faults.26 They were damaged and fragmentary, and he had no hope of reconstructing the contents of Paul’s original work without further witnesses. He planned to search for more and create a critical edition, not least because he thought the homiliary of Paul the Deacon contained the greatest homilies of the Church Fathers, capable of renewing contemporary Christian orthodoxy.27 But he never completed his task. Instead, the next edition was J. P. Migne’s reprint of the structure of the 1539 Co­logne edition in PL, 95:1159–1566. Migne’s publication primarily provided incipits and liturgical rubrics, directing users of the PL to turn to other volumes in the series for the texts. This lack of a critical edition did not prevent historians from continuing to weigh in on the nature of Paul’s work, however. German research on early medi­eval preaching would continue to mention the homiliary, but rarely seemed aware of Ranke’s discovery.28 The most enduring breakthrough in scholarship on the homiliary of Paul the Deacon came in the 1890s with the work of Friedrich Wiegand, a young Privatdozent in Theo­logy. He had travelled to the library in Karlsruhe for another purpose but decided, after seeing the manu­scripts mentioned by Ranke and Mabillon, that he would make an effort to transcribe and publish the full prefatory material in these witnesses, as well as a summary of their contents, in order to replace the Migne edition. Like Ranke, he also hoped to consult other manu­scripts to fill in the deficiencies originally noted by Mabillon. He was fortunate. The palaeo­grapher Ludwig Traube, whom Wiegand considered his ‘verehrter Kollege’ (dear colleague), passed along a note to him of the recent cataloguing in Berlin, noting especially the homiliary attributed to Egino of Verona.29 Wiegand intended to compare his findings with this manu­script, but while consulting manu­scripts in Munich, he came across BSB, Clm 4533 and 4534, described by him as tenth- or eleventh-century homiliary  24 Ranke, Das kirchliche Pericopensystem, p. 132.  25 BLB, MSS Aug. perg. 14 and 15 (SW Germany, s. ix1/2), 19 and 29 (Reichenau, s. ix2/4); Katalog, i, 332–33.  26 Ranke, ‘Zur Geschichte des Homiliariums Karl’s des Grossen’, p. 384.  27 Ranke, ‘Zur Geschichte des Homiliariums Karl’s des Grossen’, pp. 395–96.  28 DHK, p. 2. See Marbach, Geschichte der deutschen Predigt vor Luther, p. 18; Cruel, Geschichte der deutschen Predigt im Mittel­alter, p. 50; Linsenmeyer, Geschichte der Predigt in Deutschland, pp. 42–45; Loeck, Die Homiliensammlung des Paulus Diakonus.  29 CLA, viii, 1056. Berlin, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Ms. Philipps 1676 (Verona, 796–99).

i nt ro d u ct i o n

manu­scripts whose provenance was the monastery of Benediktbeuern.30 Wiegand, apparently ever the attentive scholar, knew from the MGH edition of the eleventh-century Chronicon Benedictoburanum that Charlemagne was supposed to have donated a copy of Paul’s homiliary to this monastery.31 Thus, although Wiegand believed the Munich manu­scripts were late witnesses, upon discovering their similarity to the Reichenau witnesses and their preservation of the prefatory materials, he decided they were ‘eine für den praktischen Gebrauch bestimmte Abschrift jenes kaiserlichen Prachtwerkes’ (a copy made for practical use from the imperial masterpiece).32 They substantially represented the originals: ‘In dem Münchener Codex besitzen wir definitiv das echte Homiliarium’ (In the Munich manu­script, we have definitely found the true homiliary).33 Like Ranke, Wiegand also hoped to produce a critical edition of the homiliary of Paul the Deacon.34 But his initial publication was a reconstructed summary of the collection, providing all the prefatory material, the liturgical rubrics of the main text, the biblical texts cited in the manu­scripts, and the incipits of the patristic texts, indexed to a numbering system (e.g. I:22, II:35).35 He argued that the original homiliary comprised 244 entries, divided into a summer portion and a winter portion with the sanctorale and temporale combined and with a concluding commune sanctorum. He also argued, on the basis of the Munich manu­scripts, that two of the ‘Reichenau’ manu­scripts contained significant additions and changes to Paul’s work, especially in the second volume. Wiegand identified many texts in the homiliary and directed scholars to the Patro­logia Latina for editions. Germain Morin added to his work in an article shortly after, identifying some remaining texts and suggesting that some readings in the manu­scripts Wiegand consulted were not original to Paul’s work.36 Wiegand, however, did not complete a critical edition. In 1902, he published an article that began an initial comparison of Paul the Deacon’s work with the homiliary of Alan of Farfa, suggesting that Paul may have based his work on Alan of Farfa’s homiliary, noting two possible recensions of Alan’s text, and mentioning the work of others,37 but Wiegand’s later publications took up new topics.38 As a result, his tentative reconstruction became the standard of scholarship. It was reprinted, along with a summary of the contents of But cf. Katalog, ii, 227; Schreibsch., ii, 200; and below, pp. 37–38. DHK, pp. 2–3. DHK, p. 4. DHK, p. 4. DHK, pp. 4–11. DHK, pp. 15–65. Morin, ‘Les Sources non identifiées de l’homéliare de Paul Diacre’. Wiegand, ‘Ein Vorläufer des Paulus-Homiliars’, referring to Ratti, ‘L’omiliario detto di Carlo Magno e l’omiliario di Alano di Farfa’.  38 E.g. Wiegand, Erzbischof Odilbert von Mailand über die Taufe; Wiegand, Die Stellung des apo­­ sto­lischen Symbols im kirchlichen Leben des Mittel­alters, i; Wiegand, Das apostolische Symbol im

 30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37

25

26

i n tro d uct i o n

the homiliary of Alan of Farfa, in an article by Jean LeClercq, who created comparative tables for those engaged in biblio­graphical research, so that they could more easily identify manu­script witnesses of Paul’s work or Alan’s.39 These advances in research immediately allowed for the identification of a great number of putative witnesses to Paul’s homiliary, mostly of a later date.40 Many other homiliaries were studied throughout the twentieth century as well. A remaining problem, however, was that this research on Paul’s collection and on other homiliaries was scattered among many publications. It was for this reason that Jean LeClercq suggested to Reginald Grégoire the publication of Les Homéliaires du Moyen Âge (1966), giving Grégoire permission to reprint his tables.41 Grégoire also provided a brief introduction to the homiliary genre and its place in the history of liturgy and preaching, as well as notices of the primary manu­scripts of many major homiliary collections, summaries of their contents and of studies made upon them, and updated identifications of their texts. What is rarely realized is that Grégoire did not argue afresh for Wiegand’s reconstruction. He stated that, with regard to the homiliary of Paul the Deacon, he felt largely satisfied to reprint the work of LeClercq and to add some ‘nouvelles précisions’ (new refinements).42 Grégoire under-represented his work in this statement. It is apparent from some of the passing notes in Les Homéliaires that he consulted several other witnesses to Paul’s work (even if he did not see Wiegand’s manu­scripts). Otherwise, he would not have been able to note moments where Paul supplies abbreviated or fragmentary versions of his texts, nor would he have been able to provide the explicits to Paul’s texts. These details were not originally supplied by Wiegand. Grégoire mentioned five other witnesses of Paul’s work also, and he edited a text from several others: the ‘Latin’ Chrysostom’s Clementissimus omnipotens, contained in the commune sanctorum of Paul’s homiliary.43 Grégoire’s familiarity with the manu­scripts is significant for another reason, however. His work does not mention that Wiegand had seen discrepancies and lacunae in the all important ‘Munich’ and ‘Reichenau’

Mittel­alter; Wiegand, Dogmengeschichte der alten Kirche; Wiegand, Luther der deutsche Volks­mann; Wiegand, Dogmengeschichte des Mittel­alters und der Neuzeit.  39 Leclercq, ‘Tables pour l’inventaire des homiliaires manuscrits’.  40 E.g. Oldfather and Lough, ‘The Urbana MS of the Homiliarium of Paulus Diaconus’, among many other, larger cataloguing efforts of the time.  41 LHMA, p. 11.  42 LHMA, p. 73. Cf. p. 11: ‘Les pages qui von suivre empruntent donc certain éléments de l’article de Dom Leclercq et présentent une analyse détaillée des recueils d’Alain de Farfa et de Paul Diacre.’  43 See LHMA, pp. 186–96. Consulting BSB, Clm 14380 (Regensburg, s. ix1/3); BSB, Clm 4534 (SW Germany, s. ix3/4); BnF, MS lat. 11699 (NE Francia, s. ix1/2; aestivalis); BnF, MS lat. 12404 (Tours, s. ixmed; provenance St Germain-des-Prés, s. x); Orléans, Médiathèque Gambetta, MS 38 (NE Francia s. xinc); BAV, MS Vat. lat. 8563 (S Germany, s. xi); and BAV, MS Reg. lat. 138 (Northern France or Germany, s. xv).

i nt ro d u ct i o n

witnesses. Grégoire instead made it appear as if the Wiegand reconstruction was based upon simple, consistent witnesses.44 Grégoire reprised his work in Homéliaires liturgiques médiévaux (1980). He updated his biblio­graphy and references to critical editions; he also provided new analyses of other homiliaries. With regard to Paul’s collection, however, there were few differences between the two presentations. He added a transcription of the capitula lectionum from BSB, Clm 4533 and 4534, and actually removed many references to other witnesses to Paul’s work that he had consulted for his previous publication. He noted a single new manu­script analysed by Raymond Étaix and described a few moments where the liturgical rubrics of two witnesses differ from those provided by Wiegand.45 Grégoire did not provide a historical study of Paul’s collection; his contribution was, once again, a detailed table of contents. Grégoire also repeated his simplified presentation of the witnesses used for the reconstruction, although he prefaced it this time with an observation drawn from an article of Étaix: ‘La collection originale comporte 244 morceaux […]. On observe toutefois de légères différences entre les manuscrits germaniques et les manuscrits français; elles seront indiquées au cours de l’analyse’ (The original collection comprises 244 pieces […]. One can see, however, small differences between the German manu­scripts and the French manu­scripts; they are indicated in the course of my analysis).46 Most of these differences were not indicated, however, nor are they small.47 I shall return to the issue of the primary witnesses and the reconstruction later in this chapter and in the next, especially since my study is based upon the identification and analysis of a great number of manu­scripts. A few comments are in order here, however. The primary strength of the Wiegand reconstruction, repeated by LeClercq and Grégoire, rests upon the significance of BSB, Clm 4533 and 4534, identified by Wiegand and privileged due to their putative connection to Benediktbeuern and to Charlemagne’s provision of a copy of Paul’s collection to that monastery, despite the fact that Wiegand and Grégoire believed these manu­scripts to be eleventh-century witnesses. The reconstruction rested on a thin basis: contradictory, lacunose witnesses and a tenuous historical link connecting an eleventh-century chronicle to the provenance of two manu­scripts. The manu­scripts are not what they thought, however. They are in fact dated to the ninth century and are unrelated to Benediktbeuern.48 With this piece removed, the reconstruction must be revisited.

 44  45  46  47  48

LHMA, pp. 423–25; and DHK, pp. 5–10. HLM, pp. 423–78. HLM, p. 425. Compare the conclusions of Étaix, ‘L’Homéliaire d’Ebrardus retrouvé?’. Although Grégoire evinces an awareness of some of them. E.g. HLM, p. 471. See below, pp. 37–38.

27

28

i n tro d uct i o n

Wiegand’s discovery was of course significant for 1898. At the time, no other complete witnesses to Paul’s homiliary had been widely publicized in scholarly literature. His was the first critical analysis, and my study would not have been possible without his prior work and that of Grégoire. However, the Wiegand hypothesis has never been revisited or tested. This is true even though several other ninth-century witnesses came to light by the time Grégoire wrote HLM in 1980, witnesses of which he was aware, though he failed to mention them. A case in point involves his citation of Raymond Étaix’s work. In Étaix’s 1978 article on a particular witness to Paul’s collection, BnF, MS lat. 9604 (Tours, ixmed), he noted that the manu­scripts presented a differing liturgical arrangement. Moreover, Étaix had discovered five other Carolingian witnesses with a nearly identical structure that together witnessed against the manu­ scripts used by Wiegand.49 Furthermore, Étaix mentioned in a footnote that this difference appeared to correspond better with an older form of the Gospel lectionary known in Southern Italy, a significant point considering Paul’s connection to the area.50 This presented a major challenge to the reconstruction; its weaknesses were exposed over thirty years ago, to little notice from the scholarly community. Writing two years later, Grégoire cited the article, reported only one of the six witnesses discussed by Étaix, and simply said that ‘German’ and ‘French’ witnesses of Paul’s collection differ from each other in small ways. I shall return to this issue in the next chapter.

0.2. The Homiliary in Scholarship: The Nature of the Epistola Generalis What follows is an attempt to characterize varied scholarly investigations of the homiliary. It is not an exhaustive review: Paul’s homiliary has been mentioned in passing by a great number of scholars writing on liturgy, law, preaching, Charlemagne’s legacy, the common cultural inheritance of the Latin West, and even the establishment of theo­logical orthodoxy in various centuries. I limit my survey of literature to the most important studies. I noted above that early printed editions presented Paul’s homiliary as a model sermon collection or as a source for discerning Carolingian popular preaching, as promoted by Charlemagne. As time went on, however, the homiliary’s texts entered discussions about the legal and cultural reforms instituted by Charlemagne. These discussions then influenced scholars’ approach to the homiliary and its purpose. Most commonly, in the midst of such discussions, one text was extracted from the homiliary’s contents: the prefatory document we now refer to as

 49 Étaix, ‘L’Homéliaire d’Ebrardus retrouvé?’, p. 315.  50 Étaix, ‘L’Homéliaire d’Ebrardus retrouvé?’, p. 316.

i nt ro d u ct i o n

the Epistola Generalis (henceforth, EG), due to the title given to it by Alfred Boretius in the MGH edition. Michael Glatthaar has noted, however, that varying interpretations of this document were offered throughout the early modern period.51 In 1610, Melchior Goldast von Haiminsfeld included it in his collection of Roman and German legal documents.52 Jean Mabillon presented it simply as the preface to Paul the Deacon’s homiliary in 1675, while Étienne Baluze gave it a legal title in 1677: ‘Constitutio’.53 Georg Heinrich Pertz called it ‘Encyclica de emendatione librorum et officiorum ecclesiasticorum’ in an early volume of the MGH (1835).54 Glatthaar believes Boretius’s title of Epistola Generalis was indebted to the title Jacques Sirmond gave to Charlemagne’s De litteris colendis: ‘Constitutio, seu Epistola generalis/De Scholis per singula Episcopia & Monasteria instituendis’.55 In recent Anglophone scholarship, the Epistola Generalis is occasionally referred to as Charlemagne’s ‘Letter to the Lectors’, due to its translation with that title in P. D. King’s collection of Carolingian sources.56 The primary point made by Glatthaar, relevant here, is that this document is most often presented in authoritative collections and editions as a circular letter — an encyclica or ‘Rundschreiben’ — sent out by Charlemagne to the clergy of his kingdom. It is even discussed as part of a genre of legal or royal letters, along with De litteris colendis, referred to as ‘mandates’, or as taking part in the ‘capitulary’ genre, with the Admonitio Generalis and various other texts.57 I shall discuss this point further in Chapter 3, but it bears mentioning now that such labels create expectations. There is a significant difference between a circular letter bearing legal force and a preface with limited circulation. Either way, it is clear that the framing of the Epistola Generalis as a legal text has affected discussions of the collection’s intended purpose and dissemination, whether in discussions of medi­eval preaching, liturgy, or the Carolingian reforms more generally. For example, in discussions on Carolingian preaching, a consistent set of evidence is brought forward to discuss whether the homiliary of Paul the Deacon was originally meant to be a liturgical text or also a model sermon collection for use in popular preaching. First, legal evidence is reviewed, namely, Carolingian capitularies regarding the necessity for bishops and priests to preach, including the requirement to possess collections of homilies and preach in the vernacular. Second, the Epistola Generalis is surveyed, and

 51 Glatthaar, ‘Zur Datierung der Epistola generalis Karls des Großen’, pp. 456–57; cf. DHK, pp. 66–68.  52 Von Haiminsfeld, (Collectio constitutionum imperialium, hoc est) DD. NN. Imperatorum Augustorum, iii, 136.  53 Mabillon, Vetera analecta, i, 25; Capitularia regum Francorum, ed. by Baluze, i, cols 149–50.  54 Encyclica de emendatione librorum et officiorum ecclesiasticorum, ed. by Pertz, p. 44.  55 Sirmond, Concilia antiqua Galliae, i, 121.  56 Charlemagne: Translated Sources, trans. by King, p. 208.  57 E.g. see Wallach, ‘Charlemagne’s De litteris colendis and Alcuin’, pp. 288–89 and 302.

29

30

i n tro d uct i o n

its nature, either as a circular letter or something else, is mentioned. Third, the contents of the homiliary are described and (often) critiqued, in order to determine whether Paul’s homiliary was suitable as a sermon collection. Johannes Marbach and Rudolf Cruel used this set of evidence in their influential nineteenth-century studies of German preaching, though they came to differing conclusions. Marbach stated that Charlemagne, as emperor, ‘führte’ (introduced) the use of the homiliary by ‘besonderes Decret ein’ (a special decree), that is, by means of the Epistola Generalis.58 He then mentioned the reform councils of 813, pointing out especially the requirements of owning homily collections and of translating Latin material into the vernacular. He even argued that the homily collections referred to in capitularies and conciliar texts are shorthand references to the collection of Paul the Deacon. Thus, the homiliary, with its exhaustive collection of substantial texts, provided the uncomfortable preacher with ‘Stoff und Muster’ (fabric and pattern) for preaching. Cruel, in his discussion, cited the same set of evidence, reviewing capitulary material and even noting the same texts about owning collections and translating Latin.59 He considered the Epistola Generalis, specifically calling it an ‘Encyclica’.60 But Cruel’s personal evaluation of the homilies in Paul’s collection led him to conclude that it ‘hatte also mit der deutschen Predigt gar nichts zu thun’ (had nothing to do with the German sermon). It was simply a liturgical collection. Claims to the contrary are ‘eitel Wind’.61 More recent secondary literature on preaching is marked by a tendency to repeat similar discussions and assessments. As James McCune put it, historio­graphy on preaching since the nineteenth century can be conveniently sorted into ‘maximalist’ or ‘minimalist’ positions: with only a few exceptions, historians reviewing the same evidence variously conclude that (a) the Carolingian reforms of preaching were essentially successful or that (b) they were hampered by ignorance, lack of resources, and unsuitability of material.62 Discussions of Paul’s homiliary as a liturgical collection are similar, although assessments of its success here are generally more positive than those regarding preaching. The Epistola Generalis is discussed as a legal text or as a circular letter. Then, the widespread influence of the homiliary of Paul the Deacon is invoked, in at least one of a variety of ways: the great number of late witnesses to the homiliary is cited, the putative influence of Paul’s collection on the Roman Breviary is mentioned, and the homiliary’s impact on other liturgical texts is mentioned.

 58 Marbach, Geschichte der deutschen Predigt vor Luther, p. 17.  59 Cruel, Geschichte der deutschen Predigt im Mittel­alter, pp. 39–47.  60 Cruel, Geschichte der deutschen Predigt im Mittel­alter, pp. 47–48.  61 Cruel, Geschichte der deutschen Predigt im Mittel­alter, pp. 47–48.  62 McCune, ‘An Edition and Study of Select Sermons from the Carolingian Sermonary of Salzburg’, pp. 17–35; McCune, ‘The Preacher’s Audience’, pp. 283–84.

i nt ro d u ct i o n

Once again, this pattern was started firmly in the nineteenth century, this time by Ranke. He was convinced that the homiliary of Paul the Deacon was used widely and had decisively shaped the Western Gospel lectionary; his claim was repeated by Wiegand, though it was not clearly argued by either.63 Around the same time, Germain Morin claimed, without much explanation, that Paul’s collection was the most successful homiliary of the Middle Ages and that it formed the basis for the historical and (at that time) contemporary Roman Breviary, a claim repeated in Pierre Batiffol’s highly influential History of the Roman Breviary.64 A similar claim for its influence was repeated in a variety of publications throughout the twentieth century, not least in some of the core studies of Paul’s homiliary by Smetana and Grégoire and in various reference works.65 Grégoire claimed, for example: Avec des additions et autres modifications, l’homéliaire de Paul Diacre remplit le rôle de lectionnaire liturgique patristique de la Liturgie des Heures, utilisé par l’Eglise latine durant de nombreux siècles, pratiquement jusqu’à son élimination à la suite de renouveau voulu par le Concile oecumenique Vatican II, en la Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium, du 4 décembre 1963 (cf. art. 92).66 [With some additions and other changes, the homiliary of Paul the Deacon served as the patristic, liturgical lectionary for the Liturgy of the Hours, used by the Latin Church for many centuries, practically until its elimination following the ‘renewal’ required by the ecumenical Council Vatican II, in the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium, 4 December 1963 (cf. art. 92).] These claims are essentially impressionistic. Germain Morin’s statements were based on his personal authority as a manu­script scholar, rather than on the citation of evidence. Admittedly, many putative witnesses to the homiliary have been found in the past century. But the dissemination of this collection has never been tracked, especially in relation to that of other homiliaries. Similarly, the Roman Breviary’s degree of reliance on Paul’s work or on a collection derived from Paul has never been explored in a publication. We have a situation similar to what S. J. P. van Dijk related in his study of the origins of Roman liturgy: the conclusions of late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century studies have been repeated again and again, even when the arguments lacked a clear grounding or any manu­script evidence, so that ‘much of what is written  63 Ranke, Das kirchliche Pericopensystem, p. 132; Ranke, ‘Zur Geschichte des Homiliariums Karl’s des Grossen’, p. 383; DHK, pp. 1–2.  64 The homiliary’s success was due to its origin from the pen of ‘one of the best-read men in Charlemagne’s book factory’. Batiffol, The History of the Roman Breviary, p. 109, citing Morin, ‘Les Leçons apocryphes du Bréviaire romain’.  65 E.g. Smetana, ‘Ælfric and the Early Medi­eval Homiliary’, p. 164; Smetana, ‘Paul the Deacon’s Patristic Antho­logy’, p. 75; LHMA, p. 17; Barré, ‘Homéliaires’, cols 602 and 604.  66 HLM, p. 425.

31

32

i n tro d uct i o n

appears to be comments upon comments rather than enquiries into facts’.67 My own estimation, for example, of the impact of Paul’s work in relation to other texts, based on my knowledge of extant manu­scripts in French libraries, is as follows: witnesses to Paul’s work and collections that used his work as a source make up around 41 per cent of all homiliary manu­scripts currently held in France. But I note in Appendix 5 that we must be careful about how we speak about witnesses to Paul’s text and his influence on other collections, and these numbers could not be used to generalize about the influence of Paul’s text in all areas of Europe or around the globe.

0.3. The Homiliary in Scholarship: The History of Preaching I have already considered the judgements of Marbach and Cruel above and the tendency of scholars to group themselves into either ‘maximalist’ or ‘minimalist’ camps when it comes to the relation of Paul’s homiliary to preaching. Thus, I shall not review a great deal of secondary literature from the past two centuries.68 I shall discuss, however, several seminal investigations by Cyril Smetana, Rosamond McKitterick, and Milton McC. Gatch. Most current discussions depend on them. Two of Cyril Smetana’s articles brought a considerable advance to discussions about the homiliary of Paul the Deacon and its use, although he offered little discussion of Carolingian preaching or capitulary material in his investigation of the homiliary, being focused instead on its use in Anglo-Saxon England. First, in ‘Ælfric and the Early Medi­eval Homiliary’ (1959), he demonstrated that Paul’s collection was used extensively by Ælfric of Eynsham in the composition of his Catholic Homilies, meant to reform vernacular preaching in England. Ælfric considered the homilies and sermons Paul included suitable for public proclamation and not simply for liturgical reading. Smetana also republished LeClercq’s tables, noted earlier, although with some unmentioned changes, as Grégoire pointed out, sowing potential confusion for scholars.69 He also offered a judgement that is revealing due to its presuppositions. Noting that Ælfric did not appear to use some sermons of Leo the Great and Maximus of Turin that were included in Paul’s homiliary, he stated: This is noteworthy because both Leo and Maximus, the great fifth-century ‘Volksprediger’, offer topical, brief and orthodox sermons which would seem to be much more suited to Ælfric’s purpose than the long, involved allegorical exegesis of the materials which he used. Ælfric apparently, then, did not have these homilists in his source-book.70  67 Van Dijk, The Origins of the Modern Roman Liturgy, pp. 5–9, quotation at p. 8.  68 See McCune, ‘An Edition and Study of Select Sermons from the Carolingian Sermonary of Salzburg’, pp. 1–35, for just such a survey.  69 LHMA, p. 11.  70 Smetana, ‘Ælfric and the Early Medi­eval Homiliary’, pp. 203–04. He also suggested a

i nt ro d u ct i o n

In other words, Smetana had a particular idea of what sort of material was suitable for preaching: clearly, not ‘long, involved allegorical exegesis’. And this is despite the fact that Ælfric’s usage stood against Smetana’s judgement.71 In his later article, ‘Paul the Deacon’s Patristic Antho­logy’ (1978), Smetana gave a preliminary investigation of Paul’s work, stating that it was a ‘selection of readings […] which became standard for the western church for eleven hundred years’.72 Smetana, again, did not engage in a review of the capitulary material or discuss preaching much in this collection. He did, however, consider that Charlemagne ‘promulgated [Paul’s work] by royal letter as the official homiliary of the kingdom’, in an attempt at instituting ‘Roman usage’ in his kingdoms and that the specific purpose for the original composition of the homiliary was its use in liturgy.73 One of Smetana’s major contributions was simply to give a summary description of the character of Paul’s contents, one of the relatively few (and still quite brief) investigations of the peculiarities of the selections in the homiliary and their theo­logical character.74 He offered no concrete comment on the use of Paul’s collection beyond supposing it was considerable: One has no yardstick to measure the influence on the minds and hearts of the monks and clerics who listened to or read these lessons for over a period of a thousand years. We do know that they had influence in the cloister and the pulpit.75 Smetana’s contributions can be summarized as follows. First, regarding the use of Paul’s homiliary in the Carolingian era, he claimed that it was promulgated to introduce Roman liturgical customs. Second, he implied nigh-universal use of Paul’s collection over the course of a millennium. Third, he showed conclusively that at least one person (Ælfric) thought the material in the homiliary worth using in preaching and suggested that many others did as well. Fourth, he gave some characterization of Paul’s principles of selection and of the theo­logical character of his materials. Rosamond McKitterick’s The Frankish Church and the Carolingian Reforms, 789–895 (1977) provided another major investigation of Paul’s work. Though the homiliary was not her main topic, her account is perhaps the most widely cited historio­graphical contribution to its study, taking account of the broadest array of material. Like earlier scholars, she considered the capitulary material, especially the reform councils of 813. But her study was unique in setting the much broader context of a whole Carolingian ‘reform programme’ that must be taken into account when discussing Paul’s work, Charlemagne’s intentions

 71  72  73  74  75

potential manu­script parallel to Ælfric’s copy: BLB, MS Aug. perg. 37 (Reichenau, s. x). Hill, ‘Translating the Tradition’, p. 253. Smetana, ‘Paul the Deacon’s Patristic Antho­logy’, p. 75. Smetana, ‘Paul the Deacon’s Patristic Antho­logy’, pp. 76–77. Smetana, ‘Paul the Deacon’s Patristic Antho­logy’, pp. 79–86. Smetana, ‘Paul the Deacon’s Patristic Antho­logy’, p. 89, emphasis mine.

33

34

i n tro d uct i o n

for the homiliary, and the possibility of the sermon as an instrument of that reform.76 She concluded positively that homiliary collections were used for preaching, but unlike Marbach, she did not conclude that the capitulary material automatically implied the use of Paul’s homiliary. After all, there are at least two genres of homiliary, those compiled ‘for devotional use’ and those for reading in the liturgy.77 McKitterick’s distinction — introduced originally in Henri Barré’s work on the homiliaries of the Auxerre school — is one that has been largely accepted and nuanced by later scholars.78 In McKitterick’s judgement, the collections made for public reading were most likely to be the source for public preaching.79 A slight elision between these categories is occasionally apparent in her discussion,80 but McKitterick clarified which collections she believed were used. She first considered the objection of Cruel and others about the use of Latin, noting it as a potential problem,81 but she suggested that a collection’s Latin contents did not present a complete barrier, as clergy were meant to translate their preaching into the vernacular. The issue of which collections were used was thus the primary issue, not whether they were used: The principle of selection employed for the vast amount of material which is ostensibly the sermon literature of the Carolingian period, must therefore be ruthlessly to confine attention to those homiliaries or collections of sermons which, as far as can be judged, are reasonably certain to have reached a wider audience than a monastic community, and in some cases were specifically designed to be addressed to the people. Those Latin sermons and homilies that can be so considered are: from the north-east part of the Frankish kingdoms, the homiliary of Hrabanus Maurus which he dedicated to Haistulf, archbishop of Mainz; from the kingdom of the West Franks, the homiliary of Paul the Deacon and that of ‘Saint-Père de Chartres’; from the south-east region, the Monsee and Würzburg homiliaries, and a sermon by Paulinus of Aquileia. With these, the provisions for preaching outlined in the Admonitio Generalis, the conciliar decisions of the Frankish church and the episcopal statutes, were fulfilled.82

 76 She sets this context in the whole book, but the immediate section is McKitterick, The Frankish Church and the Carolingian Reforms, pp. 80–84.  77 McKitterick, The Frankish Church and the Carolingian Reforms, p. 92.  78 E.g. Barré, Les Homéliaires carolingiens de l’école d’Auxerre; cf. Clayton, ‘Homiliaries and Preaching in Anglo-Saxon England’.  79 McKitterick, The Frankish Church and the Carolingian Reforms, p. 102.  80 E.g., McKitterick, The Frankish Church and the Carolingian Reforms, p. 123. As pointed out by Clayton, ‘Homiliaries and Preaching in Anglo-Saxon England’, p. 216.  81 A point she would re-evaluate in relation to other literature. See McKitterick, The Carolingians and the Written Word, pp. 8–22.  82 McKitterick, The Frankish Church and the Carolingian Reforms, p. 97, emphasis mine.

i nt ro d u ct i o n

With regard to Paul’s work, McKitterick stated that it was compiled for liturgical use but that it was ‘unlikely that the Frankish clergy failed to make full use of this collection […] for public preaching’, though they must have paraphrased or abbreviated its lengthy contents.83 In other words, she offered an argument of probability.84 McKitterick discussed the use of Paul’s content in various ways. She drew an analogy to Smetana’s work on Ælfric and his evaluation of the homiliary.85 She also tackled the issue of the putatively complex contents of Paul’s work. First, she noted especially that there could have been public audiences that were more or less advanced in the various parts of the Frankish Kingdoms and that a collection’s complex contents did not necessarily present a hindrance to public use in preaching.86 She believed Paul’s homiliary could have been used in public preaching as it regularly offers moral exhortation, a feature highlighted in other parts of her book as important to Frankish Christianity, the homilies commenting on the Gospels related them to everyday life, and ‘the things most familiar to a rural congregation were borne in mind’: Paul included sermons with ‘homely images, with references to harvesting, the cycle of the seasons and work on the land’.87 McKitterick raised other issues as well that are of particular importance. For instance, she suggested that Paul the Deacon’s collection, among the general sermon literature of the Carolingian period, was an ‘authorized version’ of the genre, due to its place in Charlemagne’s reform programme and as part of a move towards ‘regularization and uniformity’ in the composition of such material.88 She also raised the issue of whether Paul adapted his selection, stating that it seems he did not but that we cannot be sure until more work is done.89 She suggested that Paul may have based his work on Alan of Farfa’s homiliary.90 Finally, she made an important general point about many sermon collections from the Carolingian period. Charlemagne and his successors were interested in fostering a more general Christian piety. Thus, sermon collections tend not to refer to specific communities, do not usually talk about the king, and are not vehicles for government ‘propaganda’. Despite the current opinion of the close involvement in ecclesiastical matters on the part of Charlemagne and his successors, what the sermon material suggests is an indifference on the part of the church to public and ‘governmental’ affairs, for the

 83 McKitterick, The Frankish Church and the Carolingian Reforms, p. 102, emphsis mine.  84 Cf. McKitterick, ‘Cam­bridge, Corpus Christi College MS 334 and its Implications’, p. 188.  85 McKitterick, The Frankish Church and the Carolingian Reforms, pp. 86–87.  86 McKitterick, The Frankish Church and the Carolingian Reforms, pp. 97–98.  87 McKitterick, The Frankish Church and the Carolingian Reforms, p. 104.  88 McKitterick, The Frankish Church and the Carolingian Reforms, p. 94.  89 McKitterick, The Frankish Church and the Carolingian Reforms, pp. 103–04.  90 McKitterick, The Frankish Church and the Carolingian Reforms, pp. 93–94.

35

36

i n tro d uct i o n

immediate concern of the parish priest was his own small community and the prosperity of the church within it.91 Milton Gatch objected to the idea that priests and other preachers might have used Paul’s homiliary in public preaching. In Preaching and Theo­logy in Anglo-Saxon England, he provided the usual survey of the Epistola Generalis and capitulary material,92 before offering his objections. One is rather familiar: Paul’s material is unsuited to public preaching. Gatch’s particular spin on this trope is unique. He claimed that the Frankish councils called for ‘general or catechetical’ sermons, connected to exhortations regarding eternal rewards, eternal damnation, resurrection, and the means to a blessed life, while the homilies and sermons in Paul’s collection were exegetical.93 As I shall show in Chapter 5, this objection is immaterial, based on a shallow reading of Paul’s collection, which contains precisely such topics, as well as exegesis. Gatch’s second objection, though, is important. Other scholars, like Marbach, Smetana, and McKitterick, considered that the homiliary’s status as a liturgical text makes its use in preaching likely. But Gatch, somewhat like Cruel, raised the objection that its liturgical use meant it had no connection to preaching. The most important and influential homiliaries of which we know were made not so much for use at Mass or other public services of the secular churches as in connection with the monastic Office and in particular the Night Office at which the reading of passages of the Fathers elucidating the appointed Gospel pericopes was enjoined on certain days.94 This objection is crucial, if incorrect, as I shall argue in later chapters. It involves unjustified assumptions about Carolingian Christianity, monasticism, and homily collections. There is simply little evidence that influential homiliary collections or the Night Office itself were primarily monastic, therefore not secular, and not used for preaching. It assumes that monks did not preach publicly and that monastic and secular communities had no common ground, literature, or practices. I shall skim over other scholarly discussions of the homiliary’s relevance to preaching, for they usually offer minor nuances or developments, rather than new visions. Smetana’s and McKitterick’s views have generally been received. James McCune notes that, up to 2006, developments in early medi­eval sermon studies have been mostly limited to the production of editions and studies of individual collections.95 The most notable contributions since then are collections of essays by various authors, such as Sermo Doctorum: Compilers,  91 McKitterick, The Frankish Church and the Carolingian Reforms, p. 113.  92 Gatch, Preaching and Theo­logy in Anglo-Saxon England, pp. 28–34.  93 Gatch, Preaching and Theo­logy in Anglo-Saxon England, p. 34.  94 Gatch, Preaching and Theo­logy in Anglo-Saxon England, p. 30.  95 McCune, ‘An Edition and Study of Select Sermons from the Carolingian Sermonary of Salzburg’, pp. 6–17.

i nt ro d u ct i o n

Preachers, and their Audiences in the Early Medi­eval West (2013) and Preaching in the Patristic Era: Sermons, Preachers, and Audiences in the Latin West (2018).96 Both provide needed surveys of late antique and early medi­eval preaching and collections, updating prior research (and both have proved invaluable to my own work). Their important contributions nevertheless are studies of individual collections and brief investigations of the whole field. Similarly, Maximilien Diesenberger has provided an incredibly important study of preaching in Bavaria.97 But there is, as yet, no full mono­graph on Carolingian preaching, offering a synthetic reassessment.

0.4. The Homiliary in Scholarship: Anglo-Saxon England Studies of the use of Paul the Deacon’s homiliary in Anglo-Saxon England are among the most detailed investigations of the use of Paul’s collection. Cyril Smetana’s seminal work on Ælfric, noted above, opened the field for many others. Because of it, Helmut Gneuss offered the following challenge in 1985: It should be one of the foremost tasks of future research to establish the version or versions of Paul’s Homiliary employed in the late Anglo-Saxon period, taking into account not only the evidence of the homiliary manu­scripts but also of other liturgical manu­scripts […] and of Ælfric’s Homilies, which are largely based on Paul’s collection.98 Since that time, Joyce Hill has answered this challenge, and her investigation into Ælfric’s use of the homiliary constitutes the largest body of recent work related to it.99 Through detailed literary analysis of Ælfric’s homilies and correlations to them in the patristic texts of the reconstruction offered by Wiegand/Grégoire, she has deepened our understanding of Ælfric’s compositional method. She also provided a hypothetical description of what Ælfric’s exemplar of the homiliary may have looked like, working backwards from his text and considering late Anglo-Saxon and Anglo-Norman witnesses to the collection. Her conclusions may be summarized as follows.100

 96 Diesenberger, Hen, and Pollheimer, Sermo Doctorum; Dupont and others, Preaching in the Patristic Era.  97 Diesenberger, Predigt und Politik im frühmittel­alterlichen Bayern.  98 Gneuss, ‘Liturgical Books in Anglo-Saxon England and their Old English Termino­logy’, pp. 122–23.  99 Hill, ‘Ælfric and Smaragdus’; Hill, ‘Ælfric’s Sources Reconsidered’; Hill, ‘Ælfric’s Homily on the Holy Innocents’; Hill, Bede and the Benedictine Reform; Hill, ‘The Litaniae maiores and minores in Rome, Francia and Anglo-Saxon England’; Hill, ‘Translating the Tradition’; Hill, ‘Ælfric’s Manu­script of Paul the Deacon’s Homiliary’; Hill, ‘Ælfric and Haymo Revisited’; Hill, ‘Ælfric, Leofric, and In Natale Plurimorum Apostolorum’.   100 These are drawn primarily from Hill, ‘Ælfric and Smaragdus’; Hill, ‘Ælfric’s Manu­script of Paul the Deacon’s Homiliary’; and Hill, ‘Ælfric, Leofric, and In Natale Plurimorum Apostolorum’.

37

38

i n tro d uct i o n

His exemplar may have had 1. no preface or, at least, no Epistola Generalis; 2. intact attributions to Paul’s sources; 3. the addition of many of Gregory the Great’s Homilies on the Gospels: at least Homilies 22, 38, 39, 40, and possibly 33 and 17; 4. the potential omission of Maximus and Leo’s sermons; 5. an ordering of its post-Pentecost material in accordance with the ‘new’ Hadrianum system; 6. a separation of the homiliary’s temporale and sanctorale; 7. a relocation of the texts for the Litaniae maiores; and 8. a text beginning at Christmas, rather than Advent. Many research directions in this book were inspired by this valuable work, and some of her tentative conclusions have been vindicated. But Hill made a few crucial assumptions and points that bear mentioning. First, she considered the Epistola Generalis a circular letter,101 and she has written from the general framework that Paul’s work is part of a set of identifiable ‘Carolingian reforms of the late eighth and early ninth centuries’ on which ‘the English Benedictine reform drew heavily […]. There was an influx of Carolingian material into England which was disseminated in the reformed monasteries and monastic sees’.102 Ælfric’s use of Paul would thus have placed him in a ‘current’ and particular ‘authority tradition’.103 We shall have to see whether this understanding of Paul’s collection is justified. Second, she corrected Smetana’s statement that it was strange that Ælfric did not use Leo and Maximus. As she points out, ‘It was the exegesis that Ælfric wanted, and it was this that he worked with across three homiliaries’.104 This point ought to give us pause, especially regarding the assessments of theo­logical texts offered by many scholars; modern scholars often offer inaccurate hypotheses about what was of use to early medi­eval preachers. We must learn how to be guided by what they thought was ‘best’ for preaching, liturgy, and study, especially when they explicitly offered such assessments, as Ælfric did and as Charlemagne and Paul did as well. Third, and most importantly, Hill’s work seems to exclude the possibility that there are relevant Carolingian witnesses to Paul the Deacon’s work. She draws analogies from late (often eleventh-century) English manu­scripts, rather than looking at Continental witnesses from the ninth and tenth centuries. This method is also true of Thom Hall, who has offered a variety of studies not unlike Hill’s that shed light on the shape of early homiliary witnesses

  101 Hill, ‘Translating the Tradition’, p. 248.   102 Hill, ‘Ælfric and Smaragdus’, p. 206; Hill, ‘Ælfric’s Sources Reconsidered’, p. 363.   103 Hill, ‘The Litaniae maiores and minores in Rome, Francia and Anglo-Saxon England’, p. 216; and Hill, ‘Translating the Tradition’, p. 247.   104 Hill, ‘Translating the Tradition’, p. 253.

i nt ro d u ct i o n

in Anglo-Saxon England, both those extant and those once extant.105 Paul Szarmach similarly states that ‘there are only comparatively later Latin manu­ scripts with no notice thus far of any ninth- or tenth-century witnesses except St.-Omer 202’.106 This is something of a surprise, given the vigorous cataloguing work undertaken in Europe over the course of the last seventy-five years and publicized in a variety of articles, catalogues, and publications. In any case, it is clear that the many earlier manu­scripts uncovered in this study bear greatly on the conclusions of these Anglo-Saxonists and present an entirely new body of evidence for discussion.

0.5. Manu­script Studies and the Advent of Digital Research I shall consider briefly here one more set of material: the great variety of manu­script identifications and online projects that have appeared in the past century, due to widespread efforts at cataloguing (and recataloguing) and the creation of digital collections of material. (I shall note here only those efforts most relevant for my study.) Publications that must take pride of place in this section are those of Bernhard Bischoff and Raymond Étaix. I have already mentioned an article by Étaix that, largely unnoticed, called into question the scholarly reconstruction of Paul’s homiliary. Étaix’s studies collected in Homéliaires patristiques latins offer many more resources, including an analysis of a Lent homiliary composed in either Bavaria or northern Italy in the ninth century, which drew on Paul’s work, analysis of Carolingian witnesses to Paul’s collection from St Thierry/Reims, many notes about witnesses from Spain and Catalonia in the tenth to twelfth centuries, which were often mixed with Smaragdus (and related to Hill’s work on Ælfric), and a complete list of all the French homiliaries of which he was aware, apart from those contained in the Bibliothèque nationale de France, which he had largely covered in ‘L’Homéliaire d’Ebrardus retrouvé?’ and in a new catalogue for the BnF for which he was an advisor and collaborator.107 My new handlist of Paul the Deacon manu­scripts (Appendix 5) relies heavily on Étaix’s research. In other ways, however, Bernhard Bischoff ’s work has been even more important to this study of Carolingian manu­scripts, due to the recent

  105 E.g. Hall, ‘Latin Sermons for Saints in Early English Homiliaries and Legendaries’; Hall, ‘The Development of the Common of Saints in the Early English Versions of Paul the Deacon’s Homiliary’.   106 Szarmach, ‘Vercelli Homily XIV and the Homiliary of Paul the Deacon’, p. 77. See also the discussion in Cross and Crick, ‘The Manu­script’.   107 Étaix, ‘Un homéliaire quadragésimal du ixe siècle’; Étaix, ‘Les Homiliaires liturgiques de Saint-Thierry’; Étaix, ‘Homiliaires wisigothiques provenant de Silos à la Bibliothèque National de Paris’; Étaix, ‘Le “Smaragde” de Cordoue et autres manuscrits apparentés’; ‘Repertoire’; Bibliothèque nationale, Catalogue général des manuscrits latins, vii.

39

40

i n tro d uct i o n

completion of a manu­script catalogue providing Bischoff’s unparalleled palaeo­ graphical assessments. His posthumously published Katalog der festländischen Handschriften des neunten Jahrhunderts attempts to catalogue every manu­script attributable to the ninth century, as well as many manu­scripts from the late eighth and tenth centuries. In several cases, he identified witnesses to Paul’s text, especially text fragments, which provide among other things a sense of the wide dissemination of the homiliary. Numerous digitization projects have made photos and descriptions of manu­scripts readily available online. Although a number of library collections have been of assistance, six projects in particular were helpful: the Gallica website for French collections, the German resource Manu­scripta Mediaevalia, the Swiss e-codices project, the general results of Europeana Regia, and the extensive online collections of the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek in Munich and the Badische Landesbibliothek in Karlsruhe.108 Due to this wealth of resources, readers of this study can discover and consult many of the manu­ scripts mentioned, simply by Google search. Indeed, more are available for digital consultation than were used in the nineteenth century by Friedrich Wiegand for his critical reconstruction. (I could not take advantage of the PASSIM database, which was under construction at the time this study was published.)109 Beyond these print and digital resources, I added or cross-checked a great many references through the consultation of varied biblio­graphical sources, the catalogues of individual European libraries, and many scholarly articles on individual homily collections. My practice has been to follow up every reference that appeared even vaguely promising. I consulted every collection of homilies that was dated to the Carolingian period and identified as a witness to Paul’s homiliary, shared a significant amount of overlap with it or, more commonly, was given no description at all beyond ‘Sermons’ or ‘Collection of Homilies’. When possible, I double-checked content identifications, for mistakes are common in the identification of homily collections. I also consulted as many eleventh-century witnesses to Paul’s text as proved feasible, in case they were incorrectly dated. In practice, this means that my final list of manu­scripts was narrowed down from a much larger base of hundreds of potential witnesses. Many I confirmed or ruled out through consultation in

  108 Gallica, ; Manu­scripta Mediaevalia, ; e-codices, ; Europeana Regia, ; Münchener DigitalisierungsZentrum, Digitale Bibliothek, ; Badische Landesbibliothek, Digitale Sammlungen, .   109 Patristic Sermons in the Middle Ages (PASSIM), , is a project funded by the European Research Council and headed by Shari Boodts at Radboud Uni­ver­sity in Nijmegen. Within the project, Riccardo Macchioro is investigating the customization of patristic collections for use in the liturgy, focusing on the collection Sancti Catholici Patres.

i nt ro d u ct i o n

situ; others were checked through digitized collections or photos. Finally, a great number of colleagues and mentors sent notes regarding shelfmarks and manu­script identifications, some of which proved to be quite important, and they were also gracious enough to provide palaeo­graphical notes on many manu­scripts. It is only through drawing on all of these sources that I was able to compile a relatively full list of Carolingian witnesses to the homiliary of Paul the Deacon. Now, however, since this study is based primarily on a new consideration of these manu­scripts, it is fitting that I say a few words about them here, and allow later chapters to take up the points I have already raised.

0.6. The Carolingian Witnesses to Paul’s Homiliary I noted above that the reconstruction offered by Friedrich Wiegand depends on six manu­scripts whose contents are discordant: BLB, MSS Aug. perg. 14, 15, 19, and 29 (considered by Wiegand and others to be ninth-century witnesses from Reichenau) and BSB, Clm 4533 and 4534 (considered eleventh-century witnesses from Benediktbeuern). The six manu­scripts used by Wiegand are the only early witnesses known to many scholars, perhaps along with one additional witness noted by Reginald Grégoire: BnF, MS NAL 2322 (Tours, s. ix2/4).110 Anglo-Saxonists may be familiar with another Carolingian witness that made its way to England in the tenth or eleventh century (Saint-Omer, Bibliothèque d’Agglomération, MS 202), as I noted above. But my survey of the past century’s cataloguing efforts, along with my own new identification of several manu­script witnesses, has allowed me to produce a new handlist, well beyond these eight manu­scripts. There are over eighty ninth- and tenth-century witnesses to Paul the Deacon’s homiliary. Thirty-three of these are fragmentary (generally one to ten folios), but the others constitute major exemplars. A much larger number of witnesses survives from the eleventh century and later. The precise number eludes capture: the material presents peculiar problems for identification and classification, and defining what counts as a ‘witness’ affects that number greatly. But, in my handlist offered at the end of this study (Appendix 5), I have included around 330 witnesses, bringing the known total to over 410. This is a considerable manu­script base to use for research. I have excluded the consideration of most breviaries, which could potentially swell the list of witnesses by hundreds if not thousands more. Granting its complicated transmission history, we may say that Paul’s homiliary is among the best-attested Latin collections known from the Middle Ages, matched or outstripped by only a few others, such as manu­scripts of the Bible, the Mass, and perhaps the works of St Augustine.   110 Katalog, iii, 247.

41

42

i n tro d uct i o n

0.7. Outline of the Book’s Argument This new body of material has allowed me to launch a reinvestigation of nearly every question related to the place of the homiliary in Carolingian Europe. In Chapter 1, I provide further details of the manu­script base examined in this volume and clarify my critique of the Wiegand/Grégoire reconstruction. The sheer number of manu­scripts makes it clear that Paul’s work is among the best-attested compositions of the Carolingian period, and also a work that was received in diverse ways. The manu­scripts differ greatly: in size, quality, purity of transmission, and artistic embellishments, among many other differences. In this chapter, I argue for a larger preface to the homiliary than has usually been accepted, on the basis of fourteen witnesses that transmit some portion of its contents (rather than the two normally discussed). My argument for a new reconstruction of the homiliary’s contents is included in this chapter, along with comparative charts related to Grégoire’s reconstruction. Chapter 2 reveals the character of the liturgical year in Paul’s homiliary. I detail its surprising features, including an incomplete set of Sundays after Pentecost, a minimal sanctoral calendar, and significant provisions for the greater and lesser litanies (‘Rogation days’), the teaching of the Creed, and anniversaries of death. In this chapter, I discuss the relation of Paul’s homiliary to other liturgical texts, like lectionaries and sacramentaries. The homiliary’s peculiar liturgical year sheds light on the specific year in which it was composed. Chapter 3 explains how the homiliary was compiled and by whom, through a close reading of the homiliary’s prefatory materials (Summo apici rerum, the Epistola Generalis, the prose introduction, and its capitula lectionum) and an examination of its contents (and their significance) in the light of the availability of specific patristic texts in the Carolingian period. While I conclude that Paul was primarily responsible for compiling the collection, I also unveil the collaborative nature of his enterprise, within the context of various patron–client relationships (with Charlemagne, Theudemar, and St Benedict) and with the aid of assistants in researching and copying material. I also demonstrate that Paul’s text must have taken many years to complete and was finished around ad 797, far later than most have previously supposed. Chapter 4 considers a wide range of literary and manu­script evidence regarding the dissemination of the homiliary. It demonstrates that the temporal and material investment for creating or obtaining Paul’s homiliary was very high: requiring over a year’s worth of copying labour and the acquisition or preparation of over two hundred animal skins. It also provides evidence for use of Paul’s text in more than thirty-three elite religious communities across the Frankish Empire. Chapter 5 is dedicated to the theo­logy of Paul’s collection. It begins with a general discussion of the collection’s treatment of Scripture but moves to its intimate relationship with the topics for preaching outlined by Charlemagne in Admonitio Generalis, c. 82: the Trinity, Christo­logical doctrine, eschato­logy, and ethics. The homiliary proffers a particularly Western understanding of

i nt ro d u ct i o n

the Trinity and of Chalcedonian Christo­logy. Many texts in the homiliary betray a concern with impending judgement and interpreting the signs of its coming, but also focus on the hope of resurrection and the nature of the world to come. The homiliary is filled with patristic homilies and sermons that focus on ethical behaviour, primarily by offering up a great range of ethical models from Scripture ( Jesus Christ, saints, buildings, sacred vessels), sometimes interpreted in fairly literal ways, but often considered as mysterious exemplars. The collection attempts to foster a particular ‘allegorical imagination’ that sees nearly every episode of Scripture as offering paradigms of virtue. I conclude that the homiliary is a unique theo­logical intervention by Charlemagne and Paul. Chapter 6 turns to how the collection was used. Through careful attention to Carolingian regulatory material and to specific manu­script witnesses, I show that the homiliary was used in a great variety of ways: for preaching, liturgical reading, and private study, the areas traditionally named by scholars; but also as tools for expressing a community’s identity, its relation to the patristic tradition, and the greatest efforts of its craftsmen, scribes, and artists, all in the context of a highly organized, sacred ‘economy’ offered to God. The chapter focuses on the central place of book production in Carolingian culture, as well as the varied ways that Paul’s work was received in the ninth and tenth centuries. The Conclusion gathers these strands together, arguing that the work of Paul and Charlemagne represents one of the most extraordinary efforts of cultural and religious production and reform in the Early Middle Ages. The homiliary is thus a unique monument in the history of western Europe and the world.

43

Chapter 1

Curae nobis est The Manu­script Witnesses and Paul’s Text

In this chapter, I shall briefly outline the main problems related to the reconstruction of Paul the Deacon’s homiliary, as offered by Friedrich Wiegand and Reginald Grégoire (henceforth, GPD). After this, I shall provide a brief introduction to the extant witnesses, before focusing on a specific set of manu­ scripts: witnesses that transmit Paul’s original preface. I shall then consider a range of manu­scripts, primarily from the Carolingian era, which shed light on the homiliary and its development through their transmission of similar contents. Some manu­scripts strengthen the current reconstruction, but many challenge it. The combined evidence of these manu­scripts shall provide a corrective to the Wiegand-Grégoire reconstruction, laying the groundwork for my later chapters, in which I shall consider the homiliary’s liturgical calendar, its composition by Paul, its dissemination, theo­logy, and use. At the beginning of this chapter, I shall use the numbering system proposed by Wiegand and Grégoire. But, as I am proposing a new structure, the chapters that follow this one will use my new system — henceforth, PD — as the primary point of reference, while providing a cross-reference in parentheses.1

1.1. The Manu­script Base I noted in the introduction that scholars have long been aware of numerous late manu­scripts and early editions of Paul the Deacon’s homiliary, but also that many have laboured to find its earliest and most reliable manu­scripts. By analysing those manu­scripts in great detail, Jean Mabillon, Ernst Ranke, Friedrich Wiegand, and Reginald Grégoire laid the groundwork for all research on this topic. Mabillon was the first to label four manu­scripts held at Reichenau Abbey as the earliest reliable witnesses to Paul’s work. Ernst Ranke rediscovered these manu­scripts in Karlsruhe after their dispersal at the time of Reichenau’s secularization: BLB, MS Aug. perg. 14 and 15 (SW Germany, s. ix1/2), and 19 and 29 (Reichenau, s. ix2/4).2 Friedrich Wiegand combined the witness of these manu­scripts with those of BSB, Clm 4533 and

 1 E.g. the homily for the second Sunday after Pentecost would be labelled PD II:38 Dominica II post Pentecosten (GPD II:57), Bede, In Lucae euangelium expositio II.5.  2 Respectively, Katalog, i, 333 (1589) and i, 333 (1592).

46

c ha p te r 1

4534 (SW Germany, s. ix3/4) and created a numbering system to refer to their contents. Finally, Grégoire refined Wiegand’s reconstruction. As I noted in the introduction, however, the Wiegand-Grégoire reconstruction is unreliable. One of its primary shortcomings is its incorrect localization and dating of the manu­scripts it used. Wiegand and Grégoire followed Mabillon in identifying the four Karlsruhe manu­scripts as products of the Abbey of Reichenau and thus of a uniform witness to that abbey’s copy of Paul’s homiliary. But these witnesses are artistically and palaeo­graphically diverse. Only BLB, MSS Aug. perg. 19 and 29 are certainly from Reichenau, and even their design and decoration vary enough to demonstrate they were made at slightly different times. The other two manu­scripts, BLB, MSS Aug. perg. 14 and 15, match each other in design and script, but they cannot be traced to any identifiable centre. These two sets of manu­scripts bear no clear relation to each other, beyond sharing the same late medi­eval and early modern provenance. Similarly, Wiegand and Grégoire believed that BSB, Clm 4533 and 4534 were eleventh-century manu­scripts from the Abbey of Benediktbeuern, direct copies of original exemplars sent to the monastery by Charlemagne. They are not. The manu­scripts can be dated much earlier, to the end of the ninth century. But their script does not resemble any known Benediktbeuern hand, and BSB, Clm 4533 and 4534 can only be placed securely in the abbey from the eleventh century onwards.3 Moreover, their structure does not match the genuine fragments of a Benediktbeuern witness to Paul’s collection, BSB, Clm 29471 (1) + Hamburg, Museum für Kunst und Gewerbe, no shelfmark (Benediktbeuern, s. ix2/4).4 BSB, Clm 4533 and 4534 are likely modifications to Paul’s homiliary. Thus, the Wiegand/Grégoire reconstruction is not based on one set of manu­scripts from Benediktbeuern and another set from Reichenau. Rather, it relies on two manu­scripts from an unidentified centre in SW Germany (BSB, Clm 4533 and 4534), two manu­scripts from Reichenau made at different times (BLB, MSS Aug. perg. 19 and 29), and two more manu­scripts from an unidentified centre in West Germany (BLB, MSS Aug. perg. 14 and 15). Another problem is that these witnesses are not harmonious. Wiegand noted this point in his pioneering work on the homiliary, but Grégoire’s writing presented the manu­scripts as harmonious witnesses. He presented a simplified version of Wiegand’s limited explanation of his harmonizing process, although Wiegand said at the time that his description did not include ‘all the details’.5 Grégoire stated that the manu­scripts witnessed to the homiliary in the following way:

 3 Katalog, i, 227 (2963); Schreibsch., i, 200.  4 Katalog, ii, 291 (3469); Schreibsch., i, 37; ii, 17, 199.  5 DHK, pp. 7–8, quote at p. 12: ‘aller Einzelheiten’; HLM, p. 425.

C urae nobis est

Winter Portion

• BLB, MS Aug. perg. 29: PD I:1–33. • BSB, Clm 4533: PD I:34–67. • BLB, MS Aug. perg. 14: PD I:68–110. Summer Portion

• BLB, MS Aug. perg. 15: PD II:1–55. • BLB, MS Aug. perg. 19: PD II:65–134. • BSB, Clm 4534: PD II:65–134. • BnF, MS NAL 2322: PD II:1–37, 57, 39, 38, 40–56, 59, 61–69, 71–92, 94–113 From this presentation, one would imagine that the work of reconstruction was simple; the only divergent copy appears to be BnF, MS NAL 2322. However, the actual contents are different. (I will label them according to the ‘GPD’ system.) Winter Portion

• BLB, MS Aug. perg. 29: GPD I:1–15, 15bisa–d, 16–23, 23a–b, 24–33, 38, 39, 40, 72 (ending in fragments). • BSB, Clm 4533: GPD I:1–15, 15bisa–d, 16–23, 23a–b, 24–41a; Epiphany readings for Isaiah; GPD I:43–69, 71–106, 108–10. • BLB, MS Aug. perg. 14: GPD I:68–89; Augustine, Sermo 83; Jerome, Epistula 2.21; Jerome, Epistula 101; GPD I:90–91; Bede, Homeliae I.22–24; GPD I:92–94; Bede, Homelia II.1; GPD I:95–100, 102; Leo, Tractatus 53–57; GPD I:101–10; Isidore, De gladio secundum Lucam; Anonymous, Gaudia domini. Summer Portion

• BLB, MS Aug. perg. 15: GPD II:1–2, 5–6, 3–4; Bede, Homelia II.10; GPD II:7–13; Gregory, Homelia 22; GPD II:14–15; Eusebius Gallicanus, Sermones 12, 14–23; GPD II:16–27; Bede, Homelia II.15; GPD II:28–30, 33, 31–32, 34; Leo, Tractatus 78, 80–81, 79; GPD II:35–37, 57; Gregory, Homelia 40; GPD II:38–46; Ps-Augustine (PL, 39:2125); GPD II:47–55. • BLB, MS Aug. perg. 19: GPD II:65–81; Bede, In Marcum III.9; GPD II:83–132. • BSB, Clm 4534: GPD II:1–70, 73–74; Augustine, De sermone Domini in monte (attributed to Bede); GPD II:78–79, 77, 76a, 80–92; Gregory, Homeliae 38, 15; GPD II:94, 96 (different selection), 97–124, 126–32. • BnF, MS NAL 2322: GPD II:1–37, 57, 39, 38, 40–54, 58, 56, 59, 61–69, 71–76a, 76b–81; Bede, In Lucam III.1641–91; PD II:83–92, 94a–b, an entry noting II:108–09 for St Martin, II:95–104, 106–34.

47

48

c ha p te r 1

The manu­scripts present considerable problems, and the manner in which Wiegand and Grégoire decided to harmonize these discordant witnesses is not immediately apparent. At first glance, however, even among these witnesses, the problems of structure are less pronounced in the winter volume of the homiliary, where only a few entries have a problematic status: GPD I:15bisa–d, I:23a–b, and some works by Augustine, Jerome, Bede, and Isidore that might be additions in BLB, MS Aug. perg. 14. The summer portion of the homiliary rests on foundations that are far less secure. No manu­script they used agrees on a general sequence or set of material for the section GPD II:38–97, which comprises nearly half of the summer volume. Moreover, despite Wiegand’s stated preference for BSB, Clm 4534, it is clear that neither he nor Grégoire favoured it when reconstructing the summer portion of the homiliary, save for its first half (GPD II:1–70). Instead, the reconstruction relies on BLB, MS Aug. perg. 19 for the sequence from GPD II:70–134, with only three exceptions (GPD II:82, 133, and 134). And Grégoire ignored evidence presented by Raymond Étaix concerning a highly attested, alternate version of the summer volume.6 I encountered these problems with the reconstruction at the beginning of my project, since the manu­scripts used by Wiegand were available for digital consultation when I began my work in 2012. After realizing these problems, I determined to return to the original goal of Mabillon: I would identify the earliest and the most reliable witnesses to Paul’s work and begin from there. This work took shape in two ways. I began by working to identify every medi­eval manu­script that transmitted a portion of the homiliary’s preface: the Epistola Generalis and Paul’s dedicatory verse (highlighted by Mabillon) or the homiliary’s prose introduction (noted by Wiegand and Grégoire). Only two or three witnesses to the preface are commonly cited in the literature,7 but I hoped to find more and thus come to some initial conclusions about the homiliary. Second, as described in the introduction, I began compiling a list of every known witness to Paul’s homiliary, as well as every Carolingian manu­script containing sermons. As my handlist grew to include hundreds of potential witnesses to the homiliary of Paul the Deacon — both homiliaries and breviaries — from the ninth to the fifteenth centuries, it soon became necessary to limit my source material. I consulted every manu­script I could that transmitted the preface (and several early modern editions), along with every Carolingian witness (save one).8 As time allowed, I also surveyed a  6 See pp. 26–28 above.  7 See Neff, Gedichte, pp. 130–34; Mordek, Bibliotheca capitularium regum Francorum manu­scripta, p. 425; Smetana, ‘Paul the Deacon’s Patristic Antho­logy’, pp. 75–76, 87–89; HLM, pp. 423–25.  8 I had to omit full consideration of three witnesses that transmit the preface, because they came to my attention as this study was reaching completion. One is Carolingian: Monza, Biblioteca Capitolare, MS g8/115 (N Italy (Monza?), s. x). The two others are late medi­eval: Graz, Universitätsbibliothek, MS 672 (s. xiv2/2); and Trier, Stadtbibliothek, Hs. 219/1406 fol.

C urae nobis est

series of other witnesses from the later Middle Ages as well, especially those that seemed to clarify features of the homiliary’s transmission.

1.2. General Features of the Extant Manu­scripts Something that became immediately clear is the wide dissemination of Paul’s work. The homiliary may be one of the best-attested works created by a Carolingian author (if we can call Paul the homiliary’s ‘author’).9 The second feature of the extant witnesses is their diversity, a fact that will surprise few manu­script historians. Some witnesses are well preserved. Others are mere scraps, ruined by age, poor preservation, lack of use, deliberate damage, or even the ravages of war. They range in size, from small copies that might serve as a vade mecum to gigantic works on the scale of the massive Bibles produced at Carolingian Tours or in Italy during the High Middle Ages. The manu­scripts’ quality of production varies as well. Some are workmanlike copies, with little or no embellishment, while others are lavishly decorated. Many Carolingian witnesses from St Gall, Reichenau, Freising, and Compiègne are remarkably beautiful and represent special attempts at expressing the considerable talent and religious devotion of the houses’ scribes and artists. Similarly, many of the eleventh- and twelfth-century Italian witnesses are among the most important works of early Italian painting.10 The witnesses also differ in terms of their purity of transmission. A number of early and late manu­scripts are faithful copies of Paul’s work. But an even greater number represent efforts at transforming the homiliary by adding, omitting, or moving material in order to suit the needs of particular communities and ecclesiastical centres. The story of Paul’s homiliary in the Carolingian period and beyond is one of varied reception and use. Two other important features of the manu­scripts are their differing origins and provenances. I shall explore this point in greater detail in Chapter 3, but suffice it to say here that no single ecclesiastical centre was a primary producer or user of Paul’s homiliary. Rather, the text was copied in and sent out to many different locations. So far as I can tell, there was no place of centralized production of this text before the eleventh and twelfth century (when there is evidence for ongoing, repeated production in several centres like Monte Cassino or Sant’Eutizio in Umbria, both for internal and external use). As a result, this text travelled. There is considerable evidence for the exchange of homiliary texts throughout the ninth and tenth centuries.

(s. xv2/2; prov.: Eberhardsklausen). From my brief survey of them thus far, I have no reason to believe they would substantially alter any conclusions here.  9 See the final pages of my Introduction, Chapter 3, and Appendix 5.  10 See various essays in Garrison, Studies in the History of Medi­eval Italian Painting; Garrison, Early Italian Painting.

49

50

c ha p te r 1

1.3. The Witnesses Transmitting the Prefatory Material and Carolingian Witnesses The homiliaries that transmit some part of Paul’s original preface are the manu­scripts that ‘claim’ most explicitly to be his work. This preface has long been known to scholars. It contains a piece of dedicatory verse written by Paul, in which he describes the nature of his work and commission, praises his various patrons, and asks Charlemagne to give his sanction to the work. It also contains the Epistola Generalis, written in the voice of Charlemagne: a letter in which the king describes his motivations for commissioning the work, the task with which he charged Paul, and the purpose of the homiliary. It was the presence of these two pieces of material in one of the manu­scripts held in Reichenau Abbey that made Mabillon draw attention to them; Wiegand highlighted BSB, Clm 4533 and 4534 for the same reason. Fourteen medi­eval witnesses transmit some portion of the preface. In chrono­logical order, they are: 1. Munich, BSB, Clm 17194 (Bavaria, s. ix1/2)11 2. Karlsruhe, BLB, MS Aug. perg. 29 (Reichenau, s. ix2/4) 3. Munich, BSB, Clm 4533 (SW Germany, s. ix3/4) 4. Paris, BnF, MS lat. 16819.A (NE Francia, probably Compiègne, s. ix3/4) 5. Leiden, Bibliothek der Rijksuniversiteit, MS Vossianus latinus F.4.A (NE Francia, s. ix4/4)12 6. Oxford, Corpus Christi College, MS 255A (NE Francia, s. x) 7. Monza, Biblioteca Capitolare, MS g8/115 (N Italy, perhaps Monza, s. x)13 8. Vatican City, BAV, MS Vat. lat. 8562 (S Germany, s. xi) 9. Oxford, Magdalen College, MS 102 (NE England, s. xii)14 10. Cam­bridge, Peterhouse, MS 130 (Germany, c. 1145x1153)15 11. Graz, Universitätsbibliothek, MS 672 (s. xiv2/2) 12. Karlsruhe, BLB, MS St Peter perg. 18 (Erfurt, c. 1400) 13. Paris, Bibliothèque Mazarine, MS 695 (Co­logne, St Barbere, s. xv)16 14. Trier, Stadtbibliothek, Hs. 219/1406 2° (Eberhardsklausen, s. xv2/2)

 11 Katalog, ii, 268; Schreibsch., i, 139, and ii, 221.  12 Katalog, ii, 49. Only fols 1–3 of Voss. lat. F.4.A.  13 Belloni and Ferrari, La biblioteca capitolare di Monza, p. 114.  14 Detailed description is forthcoming in a new catalogue of Magdalen College manu­scripts.  15 Thomson, Descriptive Catalogue of the Medi­eval Manu­scripts in the Library of Peterhouse, Cam­ bridge, pp. 74–78.  16 ‘Repertoire’, p. 55.

C urae nobis est Table 1. Manu­scripts with the preface to Paul’s homiliary

Clm 17194 Aug. perg. 29

Summo

EG

Incipiunt

Utere

Capitula Homilies

[•]

[•]

•

 

[•]

•

•

•

•

 

•

•

Clm 4533

•

•

•

•

•

•

VLF 4.A

•

•

•

 

•

 

Lat. 16819

[•]

[•]

•

 

•

•

CCC 255A

•

•

•

•

 

 

Monza g8/115

•

•

?

 

•

•

Vat. lat. 8562

 

 

•

 

•

•

Magdalen 102

•

•

•

 

 

•

Peterhouse 130

•

•

•

 

 

•

St Peter perg. 18

 

•

•

 

 

•

Mazarine 695

•

•

•

 

 

•

Summo = Paul’s dedicatory verse, Summo apici rerum (Neff, Gedichte, no. 32a; see Appendix 1). EG = Charlemagne’s Epistola Generalis (see Appendix 2). Incipiunt = the prose introduction (see Appendix 3). Utere = Utere felix (Neff, Gedichte, no. 32b; see Appendix 4). Capitula = a set of capitula lectionum. Homilies = an indication of whether the text is fragmentary or is connected to an extant homiliary.

The presentation and arrangement of the preface differs in each manu­script. For example, some put Paul’s dedicatory verse at the beginning; others place the Epistola Generalis there. Four omit the dedicatory verse, while two others add a second poem (Utere felix). Three manu­scripts label the preface as prefatio; the rest contain no such title. Generally, though, the testimony these manu­scripts afford is sufficiently coherent for a common core of material to be regarded as the original preface of Paul the Deacon. This core, moreover, is only a little different from what was originally identified by Mabillon and from what scholars have come to expect thereafter (see Table 1). The Carolingian copies (in bold) give an especially clear picture. Of the seven, four preserve (or once preserved) Summo apici rerum, the Epistola Generalis, a prose introduction (Incipiunt omeliae), and a set of capitula lectionum. Five of them also contain homilies and sermons. The two Carolingian witnesses that lack homilies and sermons— Oxford, Corpus Christi College, MS 255A and Leiden, MS Voss. lat. F.4.A — are fragmentary witnesses that were once part of larger homiliaries. Each is only three folios of a relatively large size, but they were part of larger, original quires. BSB, Clm 17194 is a special case: it now transmits only the descriptive prose introduction and a set of homilies, but its lack of the dedicatory verse,

51

52

c ha p te r 1

the Epistola Generalis, and its capitula may be confidently credited to its loss of at least one folio at the beginning of the manu­script. Its first quire appears complete with a full eight folios. But the first folio seems to have been cut out; a strip is still visible near the binding.17 It is quite possible that these folios were cut out deliberately by some enterprising thief between 1878 and 1990, the time when the manu­script was first identified as a witness to Paul’s homiliary and the time when it was relabelled in a later catalogue. This would admittedly mean an oddly constructed quire of nine folios. But such odd numbered or partial quires are fairly common in this manu­script.18 Hence, I have marked BSB, Clm 17194 as originally transmitting those three elements, but I have marked these contents in brackets. BnF, MS lat. 16819.A is also missing the first two folios of its first quire. This lack means that the first several entries for its capitula lectionum are absent. However, the capitula would not have taken up all two folios. I suggest the remaining space was filled by the Epistola Generalis and Summo apici rerum. Monza MS g8/115 was a witness I could not consult, but the descriptions provided in the catalogue and in secondary literature clarify most of its contents. Among the five later witnesses in the table, only one omits the Epistola Generalis, and four transmit at least two of the preface’s component pieces, omitting Paul’s verse and the capitula lectionum. The relatively stable and ongoing transmission of the Epistola Generalis is especially notable. Between the ninth and fifteenth centuries, only the thirteenth century currently lacks an attested witness to this text. The Epistola Generalis is also free of significant textual corruption.19 It seems that interest in Charlemagne and a desire to preserve his words and deeds continued through the Middle Ages, at least among some users of Paul’s homiliary. The preface, therefore, contained four elements: Summo apici rerum, the Epistola Generalis, Incipiunt omeliae, and a set of capitula. Utere felix does not seem to be original, but must have been added to a copy of the homiliary at an early date, perhaps even in Charlemagne’s copy of the homiliary.

1.4. The Original Structure of Paul’s Homiliary: The Winter Volume As I noted in the introduction, the perennial problem scholars have faced when approaching Paul’s homiliary is its contents. The witnesses have often appeared too diverse. The three used for the reconstruction, BSB, Clm 4533 and BLB, MSS Aug. perg. 14 and 29, may be harmonised with difficulty. To a  17 Halm, Catalogus codicum manu scriptorum Bibliothecae Regiae Monacensis, iv.3, 86; Bierbrauer, Die vorkarolingischen und karolingischen Handschriften der Bayerischen Staatsbibliothek, Textband, pp. 90–91.  18 Cf. fols 166–72, 145–49, 156–58, 150–55, 159, and 160–65.  19 See Appendix 2 below.

C urae nobis est

certain degree, the fourteen witnesses that transmit the preface also present this problem. After surveying a broader set of manu­scripts, however, I have been able to resolve the issue of the winter volume, with a series of small adjustments to the Wiegand-Grégoire reconstruction. Seven Carolingian manu­scripts of varied origin clarify the winter volume’s structure. Three contain the original preface and transmit nearly identical contents. I have already mentioned two: BLB, MS Aug. perg. 29 and BSB, Clm 4533, used by Wiegand. The third is especially significant: BnF, MS lat. 16819. Bernard Bischoff dated it to North-east Francia in the third quarter of the ninth century.20 Scholars have long associated the manu­script with Compiègne, due to its preservation of a Carolingian genealogy attributed to Charles the Simple on fol. 101v (Genealogia Dictata a Karolo Rege).21 The manu­script is a double witness to the homiliary of Paul the Deacon: originally, two separate homiliaries that were bound together in the early modern period. The first manu­script (fols 1–132; henceforth, MS lat. 16819.A) is a faithful witness to the winter volume of Paul’s collection. The second manu­script (fols 133–324; henceforth, MS lat. 16819.B) is a heavily amplified version of the summer volume; I shall discuss it in greater detail in Chapter 6, but the script, decorative style, and contents of MS lat. 16819.B suggest a date in the early tenth century, sometime after the first volume was completed. It is hard to overstate the significance of this manu­script, if it is to be connected with Compiègne, though I hasten to add that the manu­script shows few signs of being produced with, or much influenced by, the small group of luxury productions thought to stem from the ‘Hofschule’ of Charles the Bald, save for a sort of decorative ‘eclecticism’.22 The monastery at Compiègne was founded by Charles the Bald to be a West Frankish Aachen, as its charter states. Because our grandfather, to whom divine providence granted the monarchy of the whole empire, established a chapel in honour of the Virgin in the palace of Aachen, we therefore, wanting to imitate the pattern set by him, and by other kings and emperors […] have built and completed within the territory under our sway, in the palace of Compiègne, a new monastery to which we have given the name ‘royal’, in honour of the glorious mother of God and ever-virgin Mary, and we have decreed that there 100 clerics should continually implore the Lord’s mercy for the state of the holy church of God, for our fathers, and

 20 Katalog, iii, 222; Man. datés, iii, 715.  21 See Bernard, ‘Une courte histoire des rois de France’; Koziol, ‘What Charles the Simple Told the Canons of Compiègne’.  22 E.g. fols 23v, 59r, 92v, 138v, including something like the typical ‘acanthus’ leaves paired with dots as in, e.g., BnF, MS lat. 270 (NE Francia, s. ix3/4), fols 1v–2r, though none so virtuosic as the Hofschule. On the ‘eclectic’ style of the Hofschule, see McKitterick, ‘The Palace School of Charles the Bald’, pp. 333–39; Koehler and Mütherich, Die karolingischen Miniaturen, v.

53

54

c ha p te r 1

forefathers, ourselves, our wife and our offspring, and for the stability of the whole regnum.23 Charles’s desire to establish a chapel directly on the model of Aachen, when combined with the evidence of MS lat. 16819.A and its preservation of the original preface of Paul’s homiliary, might suggest that Charles wished to emulate and preserve something of the liturgy of St Mary’s, Aachen, by using the homiliary that Charlemagne commissioned. If this is so, MS lat. 16819.A is among our most important witnesses, as it may have been deliberately based upon the original exemplar of Paul’s homiliary or a manu­script close to it. Furthermore, its structure is similar to that of BLB, MS Aug. perg. 29 and BSB, Clm 4533, strengthening the general outlines of the Wiegand-Grégoire reconstruction for the winter volume. It differs in only a few important places I shall note below. The fourth important manu­script is the most complete, pure witness to Paul’s first volume now extant: Angers, Médiathèque Toussaint, MS 235 (226) (W Francia, probably St Serge, s. x). It bears no additions and has only three obvious omissions: GPD I:39 (Ambrose’s Commentary on Luke, speaking of Christ’s circumcision) and GPD I:23a–b. I shall mention the third omission below. The fifth witness that strengthens the reconstruction of the winter volume is Leiden, MS Voss. lat. F.4.A. As I noted above, this manu­script contains a fragmentary witness of only three folios that contain the homiliary’s preface, but its preservation of a full set of capitula lectionum for the winter portion allows the careful observer to reconstruct the vast majority of its original contents. It was dismissed by Friedrich Wiegand as a crucial witness because it contains many more entries than BLB, MS Aug. perg. 29 and BSB, Clm 4533.24 My consultation of this manu­script revealed that it faithfully reproduces a set of material nearly identical to Aug. perg. 29, once its deviations are taken out of consideration. Moreover, the source of the additional material in it can be identified easily. It comes from a series of biblical readings and Augustinian sermons known as the Homiliary of Saint-Mihiel: Cam­bridge, Uni­ver­sity Library, Additional MS 3479 (NE Francia, s. ix3/4). For this reason, MS Voss. lat. F.4.A is exceedingly important, confirming both the reconstruction and an important early effort at amplifying Paul’s work. I discuss this manu­script in further detail in Chapter 6, along with other witnesses that used the Homiliary of Saint-Mihiel to augment the contents of Paul’s collection. The sixth important witness is Darmstadt, Universitäts- und Landesbiblio­ thek, Hs. 523 (W Germany, s. x).25 It lacks all of the homilies in Paul’s collection that were written by Gregory the Great. Where it is missing these homilies,  23 As translated in Nelson, Charles the Bald, p. 247. Cf. Airlie, ‘The Palace of Memory’, pp. 15–19; McKitterick, ‘The Palace School of Charles the Bald’, pp. 330–33.  24 DHK, p. 10.  25 Staub and others, Die Handschriften der Hessischen Landes- und Hochschulbibliothek Darmstadt, iv, 142–43.

C urae nobis est

it usually includes a rubric such as Omelia VIII beati Gregorii pape. In hoc scribenda est atque legenda (see its entry for GPD I:24). Otherwise, it only omits GPD I:23a–b. The manu­script adds a handful of items not contained in the GPD reconstruction: lections for Epiphany, an extract from Jerome’s Commentary on Matthew commenting on the genealogy of Jesus, a sermon attributed to Augustine for the Feast of the Purification, and a homily of Haymo of Auxerre. Finally, the seventh important witness is London, British Library, Additional MS 16960 (W Germany, s. ix2/4), a collection of sermons whose genuine character has gone unnoticed until now.26 After my examination of this witness, I was able to determine that it represents a very precise effort at extracting all of the non-exegetical material from the homiliary and including it in a single volume. It is now incomplete, lacking its starting and ending folios. But, as with other witnesses, its preservation of a set of capitula on fol. 132v allowed me to reconstruct some of its missing contents. All of the extracted sermons in this collection occur in the precise order of the other homiliary witnesses surveyed to this point, with only a single addition.27 After considering these early manu­scripts, which confirm most of the Wiegand-Grégoire reconstruction, the structure of the winter volume is fairly clear. We may confirm some details further. Among other early witnesses containing the preface, Monza MS g8/115 (N Italy, s. x) has only one deviation from the sequence of GPD I:1–67.28 A later manu­script, BAV, MS Vat. lat. 8562 (S Germany, s. xi), provides further confirmation, bearing few additions.29 However, when it comes to other later manu­scripts containing the preface, I have discovered a rather different situation. All of those I have analysed in detail — Oxford, Magdalen College, MS 102, Cam­bridge, Peterhouse, MS 130, BLB, MS St Peter perg. 18, and Paris, Bibliothèque Mazarine, MS 695 — are more heavily augmented and altered than the other witnesses I have mentioned. These additions fall primarily in the provision of material for additional feast days or the daily readings in Lent, in the omission or addition of unique sermon material, or in the addition of material for the summer season. The homilies from Paul’s collection are present, however, making the general outline of the winter portion of the homiliary evident.

 26 Katalog, ii, 97.  27 Reconstructed sequence from capitula is in brackets. GPD I:20–23, 27–29, 31–32, 34–35; Caesarius, Sermo 222; GPD I:37–39, 42–47, 50–57, 62–63, 65–66, 68, 70, 72, 74–75, 77–85, 88–89, 91, 93, 95–96, 98, 100–104, 106–10; GPD II:1, 3–4, 7–8, 17–18, 26–27, 31–32, 34–36, 41–43, 46–50, [53, 55–56, 59, 65–67, 71–72, 78, 81, 83, 85, 91, 105–06, 108, 117, 119–20, 127–28, 130–32].  28 Sadly, I was unable to consult the manu­script myself, as it came to my attention too late. I rely here on the description in Stella, ‘La poesia di Paolo Diacono’, p. 566; and Belloni and Ferrari, La biblioteca capitolare di Monza, p. 114.  29 GPD I:1–15, 15bisa–c, 16–22; Leo, Tractatus 24; GPD I:23–31, 33–41a–b; Isaiah lections for Epiphany; GPD I:42, I:44–109, II:8; Anonymous, Institutio festivitatis hodiernae; Anonymous, Cum preclara beati apostoli Mathiae festivitas.

55

56

c ha p te r 1

To sum up, the initial conclusion I draw is that the Wiegand-Grégoire reconstruction is relatively untroubled for the homiliary’s winter volume. Only the status of GPD I:15bisa–d and GPD I:23a–b remains unresolved, while a number of witnesses also contain an additional set of Isaiah lections for Epiphany. I shall address the status of these readings briefly, before turning to the more difficult problem of the second volume of Paul’s collection.

1.5. The Winter Portion: Contested Entries GPD I:15bisa–d is a set of Isaiah lections read during one of the nocturns of Christmas Vigils (Isaiah 9. 1–8, 40. 1–17, 52. 1–10, and 61. 10–62. 12). Wiegand included them in his original reconstruction of the text, as they are present in BLB, MS Aug. perg. 29 and BSB, Clm 4533.30 Soon after, Germain Morin suggested that the fourth reading was not original to Paul’s homiliary; four readings in a single nocturn is part of the Benedictine cursus, and Morin noted that the homiliary was not compiled simply for Benedictine monasteries.31 He suggested instead that only three lessons were original. This is a suggestion that Grégoire repeated,32 and it is sustained by my fuller survey of the manu­scripts. Among the Carolingian witnesses, only BLB, MS Aug. perg. 29 and BSB, Clm 4533 contain the fourth lection. Every other witness contains only three lections. Moreover, given that this entry is a biblical reading, it is perhaps unnecessary to track its inclusion (to determine filiation, for instance). Monasteries may have added a fourth lection from Isaiah at will, based on their own separate biblical lectionaries. The numbering system I propose here excludes this entry. It also renumbers the Isaiah lections PD I:16a–c, rather than PD I:15bisa–d as Grégoire had done. The GPD numbering perhaps unintentionally associated them with I:15, a reading destined for Nones, when the Isaiah lections are clearly intended for the service of Vigils. The status of GPD I:23a–b is somewhat similar. Wiegand included them because they can be found in BSB, Clm 4533 and BLB, MS Aug. perg. 29 (Grégoire erred in stating that they were found only in the latter).33 Among the Carolingian witnesses, these readings can be found in four manu­scripts,34 but are missing in five significant manu­scripts.35 These readings are also missing DHK, pp. 12, 22. Morin, ‘Les Sources non identifiées de l’homéliare de Paul Diacre’. HLM, p. 433. HLM, p. 434. Leiden, Bibliotheek der Rijksuniversiteit, MS Voss. lat. F.4.A (NE Francia, s. ix4/4); Bibliothèque Carnegie de Reims, MS 296.2 (Reims, perhaps St Thierry, s. x1/2); CSG 430 (St Gall, 850x872); and BLB, MS Aug. perg. 16 (Reichenau, s. x1/2).  35 Angers, Médiathèque Toussaint, MS 235 (226) (W Francia, probably St Serge, s. x); BnF, MS lat. 16819.A (NE Francia, probably Compiègne, s. ix3/4); Darmstadt, Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek, Hs. 523 (W Germany, s. x); a fragmentary witness, Bloomington, Indiana State Uni­ver­sity, Lilly Library, MS Poole 38 + Detroit, MI, Public Library, MS 1 + New Haven, CT, Yale Uni­ver­sity, Beinecke Rare Book and Manu­script Library, Marston MS 151 + Los Angeles,  30  31  32  33  34

C urae nobis est

in other abbreviated witnesses from the Carolingian period; however, we would expect omissions in these cases. It is worth noting that the witnesses that preserve the two sermons are from a fairly circumscribed set of areas and in an interrelated set of manu­ scripts, while the collections that omit it are from diverse regions and among manu­scripts with limited contact. Those that include it are from the area of Lake Constance and NE Francia; moreover, these manu­scripts are closely related to each other, as I discuss in Chapters 4 and 6. The witnesses that omit the sermons are from various regions: NW Germany, NE Francia, W Francia, N Italy, and, crucially, Lake Constance as well. Some of the witnesses in this second group are related to each other, but none of them appear directly dependent on each other. I also note that GPD I:23a–b are lacking in most of the later witnesses that preserve the prefatory material.36 Given the weight of this evidence, I was tempted to conclude that the sermons in question were not originally part of the homiliary, but there is another factor that I think is extremely important: the content of the sermons. GPD I:23a and I:23b are both sermons attributed to Maximus of Turin; however, they are now considered pseudonymous. A cursory reading of the sermons reveals that their style and theo­logy allows them to be attributed to the same author who wrote other ‘Pseudo-Maximus’ material included in the homiliary (the so-called ‘Maximus II’), including four sermons that immediately precede GPD I:23a–b. Indeed, they are part of a coherent, highly repetitive set of twenty sermons written for Christmas, Epiphany, and Lent, all of which were included in Paul’s collection and whose transmission in the Middle Ages under the name of Maximus of Turin appears indebted to their inclusion in the homiliary of Paul the Deacon.37 Given their highly repetitive character, it seems far more likely that Paul included these sermons from the beginning, but many of them were soon omitted due to their tedious character. This would account for the fact that they are missing in most witnesses of a later date. For this reason, I have included GPD I:23a–b in the normal sequence, giving them their own numbers. This has further adjusted the numbering of the first volume. Other entries I must address are the Epiphany lections from the book of Isaiah that are present in some of the manu­scripts. There are usually three: Omnes sitientes (Isaiah 55), Surge illuminare Ierusalem (60); and Gaudens gaudebo (61. 10–62. 12). Four significant Carolingian manu­scripts transmit the lections; two do not.38 One of the manu­scripts that omits them, CSG 430 (St Gall, 850x872), is irrelevant here, since it omits also the Christmas Isaiah Uni­ver­sity of California, MS 2/IX/ITA (NW Italy, s. ix/x); and London, British Library, Add. MS 16960 (W Germany, s. ix2/4).  36 Mentioned above with dates: Monza, MS g8/115; BAV, MS Vat. lat. 8562; Oxford, Magdalen College, MS 102; Cam­bridge, Peterhouse, MS 130; and Paris, Bibliothèque Mazarine, MS 695.  37 I discuss the sermons in further detail in Chapters 3 and 5.  38 Include: BSB, Clm 4533; Leiden, Voss. lat. F.4.A; Cambrai, Médiathèque d’agglomération

57

58

c ha p te r 1 Table 2. Comparative table for the winter portion of Paul’s homiliary. GPD (left column) and PD (right column).

GPD

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 15bisa–d 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 23a 23b 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

PD

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16a–c 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

GPD

36 37 38 39 40 41a–b Isaiah lec. 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72

PD

39 40 41 42 43 44a–c 45a–c 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76

GPD 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110

PD 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114

C urae nobis est

lections; this seems a function of its design as a deliberate modification of Paul’s text.39 Among the later witnesses that contain the prefatory material, four preserve them, and one does not.40 Generally, the weight of evidence seems to favour the inclusion of these lections. I have added these readings into my reconstruction of the homiliary’s contents, labelled PD I:45a–c. Finally, I should explain what I intend to label GPD I:41a–b. This entry is a set of two homilies by Origen assigned for Luke 2. 33–34 (Homilia 16) and 2 33–38 (Homilia 17), both lightly edited, finished with a section from Bede’s Commentary on Luke (I.2), and presented as a single Omelia Origenis de eadem lectione. Although Grégoire only labelled these entries I:41a–b, I will further divide them into a–c to reflect the three separate patristic texts brought in by Paul and passed off as a single piece of literature. Such a division is analytically useful, as Carolingian users of this text occasionally noticed that the comments of Bede on Luke 2. 39 were tacked onto the end of Origen’s material and thus labelled the homily differently. I shall discuss this alternate labelling in Chapter 4; it has proved quite important. My new proposed numbering for the winter section of Paul’s homiliary is provided in Table 2.

1.6. The Original Structure of Paul’s Homiliary: The Summer Volume The problems with GPD’s reconstruction of the winter volume of the homiliary are relatively minor in comparison to those complicating the summer volume. The first problem is fairly basic and concerns a general problem of evidence. Unlike the winter witnesses, no summer witness transmits an authorizing letter. Instead, the summer volume has been reconstructed in the belief that certain homiliaries traditionally paired with key winter witnesses, due to their similarity of production — such as BSB, Clm 4534 with 4533; BAV, MS Vat. lat. 8563 with 8562; and BLB, MSS Aug. perg. 15 and 19 with 29 and 14 — faithfully reproduce the summer volume and truly are companion volumes. Then, further witnesses to the summer volume that have no winter companion are identified on the basis of their resemblance to those that do. This seems like an insuperable problem. Witnesses to the summer portion of the homiliary cannot be identified in any other way. A second problem with the summer witnesses is the one I noted earlier in this chapter. The manu­scripts used to reconstruct the summer volume were highly discordant and harmonized in an unclear fashion. GPD not only oscillated between favouring various manu­scripts, but, when it was refined de Cambrai, MS 365 (Cambrai Cathedral, s. x1/2); and Darmstadt, Universitäts- und Landes­ bibliothek, Hs. 523 (W Germany, s. x). Omit: BLB, MS Aug. perg. 29; CSG 430 (St Gall, 850x872).  39 This manu­script’s date is discussed in further detail in Chapters 4 and 6.  40 Included: BAV, MS Vat. lat. 8562; Oxford, Magdalen College, MS 102; Cam­bridge, Peter­ house, MS 130, and Paris, Bibliothèque Mazarine, MS 695. One does not: Monza, MS g8/115.

59

60

c ha p te r 1

by Grégoire for a second time, it discounted a whole series of Carolingian witnesses brought to the fore by Raymond Étaix. Is there a way to adjudicate between these witnesses? It seems there is. During my survey of the extant manu­scripts, it became clear that Étaix’s discovery represents the most common arrangement of Paul the Deacon’s homiliary in the Carolingian period. It is not simply a ‘French’ arrangement, as he tentatively proposed at the time (in contrast to the ‘German’ arrangement found in GPD).41 Instead, most extant witnesses attest to the arrangement he discovered. What follows are the Carolingian manu­scripts I have identified that also transmit this more common structure. They are noted in roughly chrono­logical order, and those noted previously by Étaix are in bold: • Troyes, Médiathèque du Grand Troyes, MS 159 (Moutier-la-Celle (?), s. ix or x)42 • BnF, MS lat. 11699 (NE Francia, s. ix1/2)43 • BnF, MS NAL 2322 (Tours, s. ix2/4)44 • BnF, MS lat. 12404 (Tours, s. ixmed) • BnF, MS lat. 9604 (Tours, s. ixmed)45 • Bamberg, Staatsbibliothek, MS Patr. 155 (B.I.3) + BSB, Clm 6264a (Freising, s. ix2/4) • Co­logny, Fondation Martin Bodmer, CB 128 (Reichenau, s. ix2/4) • BnF, MS lat. 1897 (Tours, s. x) • Chartres, Médiathèque l’Apostrophe, MS 57 (84) (W Francia, perhaps Chartres Cathedral or Saint-Père de Chartres, s. x) Other Carolingian witnesses that deviate somewhat from the pattern set by these manu­scripts, but which resemble them more closely than the reconstruction, include CSG 432 (St Gall, s. ix2/4) and 423 (St Gall, s. xex). Many later manu­scripts are closer to this pattern as well.46 The major changes begin in the section after Pentecost and reflect a different Gospel lectionary than that postulated by the Wiegand-Grégoire reconstruction. The one Étaix identified, which I have confirmed, matches  41  42  43  44  45  46

Étaix, ‘L’Homéliaire d’Ebrardus retrouvé?, p. 316. Katalog, iii, 383; ‘Repertoire’, p. 44. Katalog, iii, 177. Katalog, iii, 247. Katalog, iii, 157; Rand, Studies in the Script of Tours, i, 177. E.g. BAV, MS Ottob. lat. 106 (St Cecilia’s, probably Rome, s. x or xi), the eleventh-century witnesses from Monte Cassino, and a series of Spanish homiliaries analysed by Étaix as well. Étaix, ‘Homiliaires wisigothiques provenant de Silos à la Bibliothèque National de Paris’; Étaix, ‘Le “Smaragde” de Cordoue et autres manuscrits apparentés’.

C urae nobis est Table 3. Comparison of post-Pentecost Gospel pericopes

 

Murbach Würzburg Roman/B Clm 4534

PD

Beneventan/A

Octave

Jn 3. 1

Jn 3. 1

 

 

 

 

PP 1

 

 

Lk 16. 19

Lk 6. 36

Lk 6. 36

Lk 6. 36

PP 2

Lk 16. 19

Lk 5. 1

Lk 14. 16

Lk 14. 16

Lk 5. 1

Lk 5. 1

PP 3

Lk 14. 16

 

Lk 15. 1

Lk 15. 1

Lk 15. 1

Lk 15. 1

PP 4

Lk 15. 1

 

Lk 6. 36

 

Lk 14. 16

Lk 14. 16

PP 5

Lk 6. 36

 

 

 

 

 

PP 6

Lk 5. 1

 

 

 

 

 

PA1/PP7

Mt 5. 20

 

Mt 5. 20

Lk 5. 1

 

Mt 5. 20

PA2/PP8

Mk 8. 1

Mt 5. 20

Mk 8. 1

Mt 5. 20

 

Mk 8. 1

Murbach = Comes of Murbach (Besançon, BM, MS 184). Würzburg = Comes of Würzburg (Universitätsbibliothek, Cod. th. fol. 62). ‘Roman’/B = Hesbert’s construction of the sequence common to Roman-influenced liturgical manu­scripts from 1100 to the modern period / Chavasse’s ‘B family’. Clm 4534 = BSB, Clm 4534: the primary witness used for the most contested portion of the summer volume of Paul’s homiliary. PD = the Étaix arrangement. ‘Beneventan’/A = Hesbert’s Beneventan lectionary from the tenth to the thirteenth centuries / Chavasse’s ‘A family’. PP = post Pentecost. PA = Post apostolorum.

the general outline of the Beneventan/Cassinese Gospel lectionary of the tenth to thirteenth centuries described by René Hesbert. Indeed, Antoine Chavasse believed that this lectionary arrangement represented one of the oldest lectionary systems we can still discover and predated the arrangement that would later be considered ‘Roman’.47 This point, in itself, makes sense for a collection compiled by Paul the Deacon, who was presumably familiar with the liturgy of Italy and who may have worked on or completed the homiliary at least partially at Monte Cassino, as I noted briefly in my Introduction and shall discuss more fully in the next chapter. Let me outline some of these changes briefly. The reconstruction, based on BSB, Clm 4534, proposed the following Gospel sequence for three post-Pentecost Sundays and two Sundays after the Feast of the Apostles. • Luke 6. 36 • Luke 14. 16 • Luke 15. 1  47 See R. Hesbert’s Beneventan tables in ‘Les Séries d’Évangiles après la Pentecôte’, pp. 42–43; Chavasse, ‘Les plus anciens types du lectionnaire et de l’antiphonaire romains de la messe’, pp. 12–13, 22–23.

61

62

c ha p te r 1

• Luke 5. 1 • Matthew 5. 20 In itself, this sequence is notable; it matches no other known Gospel lectionary. Table 3 makes this point in the clearest fashion, noting only the first several Sundays after Pentecost. It shows the structure of BSB, Clm 4534 in comparison to those of the Gospel lectionaries most widely known from the secondary literature, as well as a few others. As is clear, BSB, Clm 4534 is unlike the older Gospel lectionaries known to us from the Comes of Murbach and that of Würzburg; it is also unlike the Roman lectionary as it would develop in the later Middle Ages and in post-Tridentine Catholicism: Hesbert’s ‘Roman’ arrangement. The only exception to this rule is its assignment of Luke 15. 1 for the third Sunday after Pentecost. On the other hand, the homiliary of Paul the Deacon, as I have reconstructed it, is similarly unlike the Comes of Murbach and Würzburg, but it matches the Beneventan lectionary or ‘older’ Roman lectionary for the four Sundays after Pentecost, which is what we might expect. It admittedly lacks Gospel assignments for the two Sundays post natale Apostolorum, but these would be filled in over the course of the ninth and tenth centuries and, from then on, it continues to match the Beneventan sequence. We should mark the ninth century as a time of lectionary development, when diversity is to be expected in the assignment of Gospel lections. Some lectionaries did not assign much material at all for the first few Sundays after Pentecost, such as the capitulare euangeliorum used in the Lorsch Gospels and Lothar Gospels: respectively, BAV, MS Pal. lat. 50 (‘Hofschule’ of Charlemagne, before 814) and BnF, MS lat. 266 (Tours, 849–51).48 Others, like the Codex Aureus, BSB, Clm 14000 (‘Hofschule’ of Charles the Bald, c. 870), are similar to the Comes of Murbach. Finally, multiple Gospel lectionaries from a single centre, such as those made in Carolingian St Gall, differ amongst themselves and differ from homiliaries made in the same place.49 Development and change in the summer lectionary is thus expected. It is all the more striking, then, that the majority of centres that copied the summer portion of Paul’s homiliary initially made no alterations to its arrangement of Gospel homilies. The strong attestation of the arrangement that Étaix highlighted and that I am confirming is almost precisely what we would not expect, which goes to strengthen its authenticity all the more. Its strong attestation among copies from Tours is also surprising, given that the Lothar Gospels, which have a completely different arrangement, were also made at Tours. There was a desire to have the original arrangement of the homiliary, it seems.

 48 Katalog, iii, 24–25.  49 See, e.g., CSG 432 (s. ix2/4), pp. 131–38; CSG 50 (s. ix3/4), pp. 516–17; CSG 54 (c. 900), pp. 83–90; CSG 434 (872x883), pp. 8–43. Among these, only the latest match each other.

C urae nobis est

I shall now lay out a few other changes I am proposing. First, I have already mentioned that very few ninth-century witnesses to Paul’s collection possess Gospel excerpts or homilies for the Sundays immediately after the feast of Sts Peter and Paul (Dominica I and II post natale Apostolorum). What they have instead are two topical sermons attributed to St John Chrysostom on David and Goliath and on Absalom (GPD II:56 and II:59, my PD II:57–58). Second, Paul probably did not include material for the Feast of the Assumption. This feast is lacking in the earliest Carolingian witnesses. The first extant witness to include material for that feast is among our earliest and most reliable manu­scripts: Co­logny, Fondation Martin Bodmer, CB 128 (Reichenau, s. ix2/4). Its assignment of a selection from Bede’s Commentary on Luke on Luke 10. 38 was repeated in BLB, MS Aug. perg. 19 (also Reichenau, s. ix2/4). CSG 432 and BSB, Clm 4534 repeat this assignment as well. But both BSB, Clm 4534 and CSG 432 depend on BLB, MS Aug. perg. 19, on Co­logny, MS CB 128, or on a copy of one of these, as I shall show in Chapter 4.50 Other homiliaries that include homilies or sermons for the Assumption assign other material. BAV, MS Ottob. lat. 106 (St Cecilia’s, Rome, s. x or xi), for instance, includes sermons by Pseudo-Ildefonsus and a poem by Hincmar of Reims, while BAV, MS Vat. lat. 8562 (S Germany, s. xi) has sermons by Pseudo-Augustine, Pseudo-Ildefonsus, and Ambrosius Autpertus. I also propose a change to GPD II:82. For this entry, GPD supplies the Gospel reading of Mark 9. 16 and a corresponding section from Bede’s Commentary on Mark III.202–344. But I have found that it was far more common for that Gospel reading to be included, yet be paired with Bede’s Commentary on Luke III.1641–91. It even bore a rubric explicitly noting this odd conjunction. The reason for this pairing is not entirely clear to me, except that the Commentary on Luke deals with this Scriptural episode more succinctly, as Luke’s version of the pericope is shorter. Some other superficial changes are that Grégoire included some split assignments: GPD II:76a and II:76b, II:94a and II:94b. I have separated these entries for ease of reference. The ‘a/b’ system adopted by Grégoire is unnecessary in all but one case. I have also included a new entry as PD II:93, as nearly all the early witnesses included a rubric denoting the feast of St Martin and directing readers to a sermon and a homily copied out in the commune sanctorum. The only places I have retained an ‘a/b’ distinction are at GPD II:75a–b (now PD II:72a–b) and at GPD II:92a–b (now PD II:90a–b). In both places, the distinction represents a section in the homiliary where Paul the Deacon joined as a single entry two separate sections from patristic works — in the first case, two excerpts from Bede’s Commentary on Luke, and in the second case, two excerpts from Jerome’s Commentary on Matthew — but without noting that he did so. The ‘a/b’ distinction is analytically useful in such cases.  50 See pp. 153–54.

63

64

c ha p te r 1 Table 4. Comparative table for the summer volume. GPD according to its own number (left), PD according to GPD numbering (centre), and PD (right).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

36 37 38 39   40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69

36 37 57 39 38 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56     59   61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69

36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57     58   59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67

C urae nobis est Table 4. (continued)

70 71 72 73 74 75a 75b 76a 76b 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92a 92b 93 94a 94b   95 96 97 98 99

  71 72 73 74 75a–b   76a 76b 77 78 79 80 81 Bede, In Luc II.1641–91 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92a 92b   94a 94b St Martin rubric 95 96 97 98 99

  68 69 70 71 72a–b   73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90a 90b   91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98

100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134

100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134

99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133

65

66

c ha p te r 1

The end result of these changes to GPD provides 133 entries for the summer portion of the homiliary. Moreover, I have made no significant revisions to the series of entries from PD II:1–36 and II:95–134. It is the entries between II:37 and II:94 that have shifted.

1.7. Conclusion I began this chapter by noting the great number and diversity of extant witnesses to Paul’s homiliary, as well as the problems with the WiegandGrégoire reconstruction. However, by returning to the earliest and most reliable manu­scripts, I have offered a new, more secure reconstruction. My structure retains a large part of the previous reconstruction, while adding nuance to it. The winter volume is mostly unchanged, although I have proposed a new numbering sequence, on the basis of the confirmation of the genuine character of several items (formerly, GPD I:15bisa–d and I:23a–b) and the addition of Isaiah lections for Epiphany. The primary changes occur in the summer volume. I have renumbered about 50 per cent of its contents: the sequence from II:38–94. With all of these changes in place, my reconstruction of the homiliary of Paul the Deacon contains 243 patristic readings and two sets of Isaiah lections at Christmas and Epiphany, making up 245 entries. Two additional rubrics I have noted and added into the structure direct the reader to reuse some lections for St Martin’s feast (PD II:93) and the Nativity of Mary (PD II:74/GPD II:76b), making 247 entries in total.51 On the basis of this new, secure structure, I shall now move on to discuss the character of the liturgical year in Paul’s homiliary in the next chapter and other features of the homiliary in later chapters.

 51 Grégoire noted these rubrics, but did not include them consistently in his structure.

Chapter 2

Per totius anni circulum Paul’s Liturgical Year

According to the preface of Paul the Deacon’s homiliary, it contains readings ‘per totius anni circulum’ (through the circle of the whole year). That is, it provides entries ‘tam in singulis dominicis diebus quamque et in reliquis festiuitatibus’ (both on individual Sundays and also on the remaining feasts). But this statement masks some peculiarities in the homiliary’s assignments and provisions, which are particularly relevant for the history of the liturgy and the Christian calendar. This chapter shall explore the homiliary’s liturgical arrangement: its Sundays, feasts, fasts, and other observances. I shall also offer some comments on the general structure of Paul’s homiliary, especially in reference to other liturgical manu­scripts. As an aid, a complete list of the liturgical occasions in the homiliary is included at the end of this chapter.

2.1. ‘Individual Sundays and the Remaining Feasts’ In the Epistola Generalis, Charlemagne expressed a desire for a new liturgical book that would contain eloquent, properly edited ‘tractatus atque sermones diuersorum catholicorum patrum’ (tracts and sermons of diverse Catholic Fathers), to be used on a great variety of occasions. The new collection was meant to replace previous ones that Charlemagne had surveyed and found wanting. Charlemagne states that Paul ‘absque uitiis nobis optulit lectiones’ (offered us readings without textual corruptions). These readings were brought together ‘in duobus uoluminibus per totius anni circulum congruentes cuique festiuitate distincte’ (into two volumes through the circle of the whole year and fit for each distinct feast).1 The homiliary’s prose introduction, Incipiunt omeliae, makes a similar claim: In nomine omnipotentis dei. Incipiunt omeliae siue tractatus beatorum Ambrosii Augustini Hieronimi Leonis Maximi Gregorii et aliorum catholicorum et uenerabilium patrum, legendae per totius anni circulum, tam in singulis dominicis diebus quamque et in reliquis festiuitatibus, id est, natiuitate domini necnon Epiphania seu Pascha, ascensione quoque domini,

 1 See Appendix 2.

68

c ha p te r 2

siue Pentecoste, uel etiam festis Apostolorum Virginum Martyrumque seu Confessorum ieiuniorumque diuersorum. [In the name of Almighty God. Here begin the homilies or tracts of blessed Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome, Leo, Maximus, Gregory, and other Catholic and Venerable Fathers, to be read through the circle of the whole year, both on individual Sundays and also on the remaining feasts, i.e. the Nativity of the Lord, and, indeed, the Epiphany, Pascha, also the Ascension of the Lord, and Pentecost, and also on the feasts of the Apostles, Virgins, and Martyrs, or Confessors and diverse fast days.]2 By claiming to have enough material for ‘the circle of the whole year’ and then defining what sort of feasts are included within that year, the homiliary puts forth an exemplary version of the Christian calendar. In a time when the liturgical calendar was still being shaped, this homiliary helped define which divine feasts and fasts are worth celebrating. On a superficial level, Paul’s collection seems to offer little that is surprising. It covers a series of Sundays, divided into the primary, recognizable seasons of the Christian liturgical year. These seasons (and their number of Sundays) had settled to some extent before Paul began his work. For example, the Sundays from Septuagesima to Pentecost had become fixed in number, even as the precise date of their observation moved according to the vagaries of the interaction between solar and lunar calendars. But the number of Sundays in what is now called ‘ordinary time’ remained variable in the early Middle Ages: the pre-Christmas season, the Sundays after Epiphany, and the Sundays after Pentecost.3 Paul provides readings for the following: • Sundays before Christmas (ante natalem Domini) • Sunday after Christmas • Sundays after Epiphany • Septuagesima, Sexagesima, and Quinquagesima • Sundays in Quadragesima/Lent (the fourth being Ante palmas or In traditione symboli, the fifth In palmas) • Sundays in Easter (Easter Sunday and its Octave, followed by 4 others) • Sunday after Ascension • Pentecost • Sundays after Pentecost • Sundays after the feast of the Apostles (Sts Peter and Paul)

 2 See Appendix 3.  3 Vogel, Medi­eval Liturgy, pp. 311–14, 407–09; Fassler, ‘Sermons, Sacramentaries, and Early Sources for the Office’.

Per tot ius anni circulum

• Sundays after the feast of St Laurence • Sundays after the feast of the Holy Angel (St Michael) Anyone familiar with the Christian liturgical year — as it was observed in the Middle Ages or as presently observed — will notice some peculiarities. First, the collection does not provide a full number of Sundays for the year: there are only forty-six, instead of fifty-two.4 Also, the Sundays after Pentecost are not organized in a ‘continuous’ system, with Sundays numbered between 1 and 25 post Pentecosten or post Trinitatem. That continuous system is adopted in most contemporary lectionaries and was commonly, but not universally, adopted in early medi­eval liturgical texts, such as the ‘Frankish Gelasian’ sacramentaries, the Carolingian supplement to the Hadrianum sacramentary, or the Comes of Murbach, sometimes thought to represent Roman practice of the late seventh and early eighth centuries.5 In contrast, Paul’s temporale is mixed with its sanctorale, and the Sundays of the post-Pentecost season are numbered with respect to their proximity to four feasts, one of Christ and the others of saints: Pentecost, Sts Peter and Paul, St Lawrence, and the Holy Angel. In doing so, Paul’s text may be associated with a different set of liturgical books, such as the ‘Gregorian-type’ sacramentary in Padua, Biblioteca Capitolare, MS D. 47 (Palace of Lothar I, c. 842–55),6 sometimes thought to represent older Roman practice of the mid-seventh century and earlier.7 The origin and date of these two systems of labelling post-Pentecost Sundays are unclear. Their reconstruction is based on interpreting various data from (mostly) Carolingian manu­scripts that purport to reflect Roman practice, rather than any texts clearly copied in Rome itself. The major Christo­logical feasts in Paul the Deacon’s homiliary encompass some of the Sundays of the year, but most of them fall on variable days whose place in the week shifted according to the vagaries of solar and lunar cycles, as well as their interaction (e.g. Easter). There are few surprises in Paul’s provisions for these feasts. He assigned readings for Christmas and its Octave (that is, the Feast of the Circumcision), Epiphany and its Octave, Holy Week, Easter and its Octave, Pascha annotina, the Ascension, and Pentecost. Among these, the only feast worthy of special note at this time is Pascha annotina, which is a

 4 Cf. p. 83, below.  5 Vogel, Medi­eval Liturgy, pp. 70–77, 86–87; Wilmart, ‘Le Comes de Murbach’, describing Besançon, BM, MS 184, fols 57–73. For modern texts, see, e.g. the continuous system of the Revised Common Lectionary, that of the classic Anglican Books of Common Prayer (1549, 1552, 1559, and 1662), and the pre- and post-Vatican II Roman Catholic lectionaries.  6 Katalog, iii, 4, and literature cited there.  7 Vogel, Medi­eval Liturgy, pp. 92–97. Cf. the lectionary in BnF, MS lat. 9451 (N Italy, s. vii/ix); Chartres, Médiathèque l’Apostrophe, MS 24 (Tours, c. 820); and Lucca, Biblioteca Capitolare Feliniana, MS 8 (N Italy, s. ix/x). See Amiet, ‘Un Comes carolingien inédit de la Haute-Italie’; and Chavasse, ‘Les plus anciens types du lectionnaire et de l’antiphonaire romains de la messe’, pp. 8–11.

69

70

c ha p te r 2

‘yearly’ Octave, the celebration of the date on which Easter had fallen in the prior year and perhaps an annual celebration for those baptized on Easter.8 A practised eye might suppose that the feast of the Presentation of Christ is missing, but it is included in the homiliary, associated with the Virgin Mary. I describe it below in the feasts of the saints.9

2.2. The Sanctoral Cycle Paul’s two volumes include material assigned for some of the feasts of the saints as well. It is a limited sanctoral cycle. Only twenty feasts are present for seventeen saints and one group of saints. In other words, the homiliary does not contain that great cloud of witnesses that populates most Carolingian liturgical texts. Listed in their order according to the liturgical calendar, but not necessarily their order in the homiliary, the feasts that appear are the following: • St Stephen the Protomartyr (26 December) • St John the Evangelist (27 December) • Holy Innocents (28 December) • St Hilary of Poitiers (13 January, optional) • St Agnes (21 January) • The Purification of the Virgin Mary (2 February) • Sts Philip and James (1 May) • The Nativity of St John the Baptist (24 June) • Sts Peter and Paul (29 June) • St Eusebius of Vercelli (2 August, optional) • St Lawrence (10 August) • The Beheading of St John the Baptist (29 August) • St Paulinus of Trier (31 August, optional) • The Nativity of the Virgin Mary (8 September) • St Cyprian (16 September) • St Matthew (21 September) • The Holy Angel (i.e. St Michael, 29 September)  8 See Peter Chryso­logus: Selected Sermons, trans. by Palardy, iii, 12, n. 1, citing Sottocornola, L’anno liturgico nei sermoni di Pietro Criso­logo, pp. 83–84 and 188–90.  9 Sometimes it receives a Greek title in PD manu­scripts, with varying ortho­graphy: Hypapante or Hypapanti.

Per tot ius anni circulum

• St Martin (11 November) • St Felicity (24 November, optional) • St Andrew (30 November) Only two saints have more than one feast in the collection’s sanctorale: the Virgin Mary and John the Baptist. Notably, the efforts of Pope Sergius (678–701) to link and popularize four feasts of the Virgin through common celebrations are not reflected here.10 The homiliary’s feasts of Mary include only her Nativity and the Purification, not the Annunciation or Assumption.11 The absence of the Assumption may help us date the composition of Paul’s text, since the Bavarian synods of 800 (Reisbach, Freising, Salzburg) had mandated its celebration.12 Regarding the Annunciation, it is important to note that the events of the Annunciation, as well as the Visitation, are celebrated in their own fashion in the homiliary. The Gospel readings recounting these events (Lk 1. 26–38 and 1. 39–56) are assigned with commentary on them from Bede. They are PD I:11, Feria IV ante Natalem Domini (GPD I:11), Bede, Homelia I.3; and PD I:12, Feria VI ante Natalem Domini (GPD I:12), Bede, Homelia I.4. Three saints’ days have readings provided for the vigils of their feasts: the Nativity of St John the Baptist, the Feast of Sts Peter and Paul, and the Feast of St Andrew. In the commune sanctorum, material is provided for celebrating the vigil of the feast of an apostle or a martyr, but not for other types of saints like a confessor or a virgin. In the collection, the feasts of three confessors and of one martyr are ‘optional’. Regarding the confessors, the feasts of Hilary of Poitiers, Paulinus of Trier, and Eusebius of Vercelli — three fourth-century defenders of the doctrine of the Trinity — have a specific sermon of Maximus II assigned for them. But this entry and its rubric are PD II:104 (GPD II:105), placed in the commune sanctorum; and the material is simply said to ‘be fitting’ for their feasts. These may be ‘suggested’ feasts, rather than necessary parts of the sanctorale. Their inclusion remains important, though. At the least, it makes good the claim of part of the homiliary’s preface, that the homiliary includes material for the feasts of the apostles, virgins, martyrs, and confessors. Note the plural. Without counting these three, St Martin would be the only confessor in the homiliary’s sanctorale. Nor should we think that the choice is accidental:  10 Liber pontificalis, c. 86, ed. by Duchesne, i, 376 and 381; Vogel, Medi­eval Liturgy, pp. 69 and 128, n. 241.  11 Confirming the supposition of Morin, ‘Les Sources non identifiées de l’homéliare de Paul Diacre’, p. 402, but running counter to the suggestion of Woods, ‘Inmaculata, Incorrupta, Intacta’, pp. 248–57.  12 McKitterick, Charlemagne, p. 324. The 813 Council of Mainz had added St Remigius of Reims. MGH Capitularia II.1, c. 36 (p. 269), cited in McKitterick, Charlemagne. I have yet to see a Carolingian homiliary with Remigius included. Notably, the Assumption is contained in many early witnesses near Germany, like BSB, Clm 4534 and BLB, MS Aug. perg. 19. But see Woods, ‘Inmaculata, Incorrupta, Intacta’, pp. 248–51.

71

72

c ha p te r 2

the inclusion of three confessors of Trinitarian doctrine lifts up a particular form of sanctity. Even if the actual writings of these three confessors were not provided, their obstinate doctrinal purity was made a model. Similarly, PD II:123 (GPD II:124) is placed in the commune sanctorum, but the rubric is In natale sanctae Felicitatis seu et aliarum sanctarum (On the feast of St Felicity or other holy women). A clear reason for such a rubric is that the homily assigned for the day, Gregory the Great’s Homelia 1, names and speaks at length about Felicity. It seems odd that Paul would label this entry as being suitable for ‘other holy women’. The placement of this homily is also odd, in that Felicity is grouped with the virgins in the commune sanctorum, despite having had seven sons! All in all, the division of feasts covers the various types of saint fairly well. Paul included six apostles (five of whom were martyrs), four confessors, two evangelists, and an angel. Among the martyrs, we have three traditional figures (Agnes, Lawrence, and Felicity), as well as the Holy Innocents. The Virgin Mary and John the Baptist are arguably in a category of their own. Finally, eleven of these twenty celebrations are the feasts of biblical saints.

2.3. The Purpose of a Limited Sanctoral Cycle A brief, general comment on the nature of this sanctoral cycle is in order. In the past, Yitzhak Hen has argued that the sanctorale in the homiliary of Paul the Deacon is not especially Roman or Italian.13 This point seems true. For example, several traditionally celebrated saints mentioned in the Communicantes of the Eucharistic prayer fail to make it into the homiliary (e.g. Xystus, Cornelius, Chrysogonus).14 No popes’ feasts are present, not even Gregory the Great’s, despite the inclusion of a great number of his Gospel homilies. Paul included no local Italian saints: not even St Benedict made his way into the sanctorale, though he appears in its prefatory material as an overarching heavenly patron of Paul the Deacon and the collection.15 It is hard to say that there are any peculiarly ‘Frankish’ celebrations either. St Matthew and St Martin may have been Frankish favourites, but their veneration was not unknown elsewhere. Similarly, the inclusion of the trio of confessors noted above (Hilary of Poitiers, Paulinus of Trier, and Eusebius of Vercelli) could be seen as evidence of some bent towards particular localities, although it would seem that their confession of the Trinity was the reason for their association with each other and their inclusion in the homiliary, rather than an appeal to local interests.

 13 Hen, ‘Paul the Deacon and the Frankish Liturgy’, pp. 216–21.  14 Jasper and Cuming, Prayers of the Eucharist, p. 164.  15 See Appendix 1.

Per tot ius anni circulum

Hen notes that Paul’s collection is far less Roman than many Merovingian liturgical cycles he has surveyed in the past.16 But Paul is also far less GalloRoman, Frankish, and personal. Familiar Frankish saints like Germanus of Paris, Symphorian of Autun, and Caesarius of Arles do not appear, nor do Amandus, Vedastus, Wandrille, or Eligius. There are no Merovingian political saints like Audoin. Nor do saints of particular importance to Charlemagne’s family appear, such as Petronilla, Gertrude, Arnulf of Metz, or Denis.17 As Hen notes, there is little slant towards local celebrations.18 The collection’s sanctorale is general or ‘universal’. This may be part of a general Carolingian attempt at delimiting or trimming back the sanctoral cycle, evidenced in Admonitio Generalis, c. 42 and at the 794 Council of Frankfurt,19 but Paul’s austere calendar may also reflect the purpose of his homiliary. Not every saint’s feast was meant to have a full set of readings devoted to it, even if it was celebrated, and there were broader discussions in the Carolingian period that reflect the kind of limited assignments we find here. For example, if one compares the sanctorale of the homiliary with those feasts listed in Hildemar of Corbie’s Commentary on the Rule of Benedict as being ‘praecipue’ (special) — of universal interest, and thus worthy of extraordinary liturgical celebration — there are only a few differences.20 Hildemar added the feasts of Cecilia, Benedict, Agatha, the Assumption, and All Saints, and he mentions the feasts of the apostles. He omitted Holy Innocents, the Beheading of John the Baptist, and the feasts of Hilary, Paulinus, and Eusebius. But the overlaps are otherwise considerable. Hildemar even explicitly dismissed a series of saints, including Roman martyrs, from the category ‘praecipue’. He considered them worthy of additional celebration only if their relics were held locally. All the saints outside of the designation ‘praecipue’ were not to be assigned special celebrations and readings, such as patristic lections and lengthier observations of the Night Office. Such an attitude may be detected in an earlier period as well. In a letter from Theudemar of Monte Cassino to Charlemagne, likely drafted by Paul the Deacon, a similar point is made. Theudemar distinguishes four levels of celebration, naming concomitant differences in the monks’ diet at Monte Cassino that matched each level:

 16 Hen, ‘Paul the Deacon and the Frankish Liturgy’, pp. 217–18; see Hen, Culture and Religion in Merovingian Gaul, pp. 89–107, for some of his efforts at describing Merovingian sanctoral cycles.  17 As in the Godescalc Evangelistary, noted in McKitterick, Charlemagne, p. 325.  18 Hen, ‘Paul the Deacon and the Frankish Liturgy’, p. 217.  19 On which, see McKitterick, Charlemagne, p. 324, n. 110.  20 See Hildemar of Corbie, ‘Chapter 14: How Vigils Are Performed in the Feasts of the Saints’, trans. by Guiliano, at The Hildemar Project, ed. by Diem and others, , where Mittermüller’s Latin text may be found with my English translation. For discussion of ‘special’ feasts, with which the whole chapter is concerned, see Mittermüller, Expositio Regulae ab Hildemaro tradita, pp. 299–303.

73

74

c ha p te r 2

1. fast days, 2. ferial days, 3. Sundays and feast days, and 4. the ‘highest feasts’ (‘festivitates summae’). The occasions named as ‘festivitates summi’ are once again familiar. Theudemar lists Christmas, Epiphany, Easter, and Easter Tuesday, along with the feasts of Sts John, Peter, Lawrence, Martin, Benedict, and Mary.21 My point here is not that the feasts listed in Paul’s preface, Theudemar’s letter, and Hildemar’s Commentary are identical. Rather, some compilers of sanctoral calendars in Francia and Italy acknowledged that only certain ‘special’ saints are worthy of the highest veneration, alongside the major Christo­logical solemnities. The sanctorale of Paul’s collection primarily includes those saints that might be accepted by anyone, leaving to the side the vast majority of saints in doing so. Moreover, the sanctorale’s freedom from Roman, Gallo-Roman, Frankish, or personal elements may be part of its design. Its commune sanctorum could cater to those desiring further celebration.

2.4. ‘Diverse Fasts’ and Other Occasions A few other liturgical occasions are worthy of note. First are the weeks where readings are provided on ferial days. These might be best viewed as extensions of the feasts themselves or preparations for them, and they include the week before Christmas, the days between Epiphany and its Octave, the ferial days of Holy Week, and the week of Easter. There are also enough readings provided in the homiliary to provide additional coverage for the days after Pentecost, and the first and second weeks of Lent, though these additional readings are not explicitly labelled for ferial days. Paul also included material designed for periods of fasting and prayer. Two explicit provisions are for the fasts of the seventh and tenth months. Another is for Letania maiore and a final provision is labelled In letania quando uolueris. I shall discuss these separately. The fasts of the seventh and tenth months have names that can appear somewhat misleading, since they occur, respectively, in September and December. The labels are thought to be a relic of their origin during a time when the Roman liturgical calendar began with the Easter holidays in March, perhaps before the fifth or sixth century, although no extant late antique manu­scripts begin at this date.22 These fasts were part of the observance of four special, seasonal periods of fasting that came to be known as the Ember  21 See Theudemar, Letter to Charlemagne, c. 6, ed. and trans. by Venarde, pp. 234–35.  22 Vogel, Medi­eval Liturgy, p. 313.

Per tot ius anni circulum

Days, which had been observed from at least the end of the fifth century in Rome and whose observance eventually ‘spread throughout the entire Latin Church’.23 Their precise timing, however, was only standardized in the twelfth century, and some diversity of practice seems normal before that point, in terms of observance and timing. Something that remains unclear to me is why Paul included material for only two of these fasts: the fasts of the seventh and the tenth months. One possibility is that the observation and timing of these fasts was simply not common enough yet. But this does not account for the absence of their observation; Gelasian, Gregorian, and Hadrianum-influenced sacramentaries all possessed material for the Ember Days in the Carolingian period.24 Another possibility is that Paul did not think the fasts were days of observance that merited extra patristic readings. After all, the material explicitly assigned for the fast of the tenth month is relegated to the commune sanctorum,25 after a sermon on the fasting of the Ninevites attributed to John Chrysostom, the rubric of which is In letania quando uolueris (For a day of prayer when you want). Shortly after this entry, there follows material for In die depositionis anniuersario cuius uolueris defuncti fidelis (Upon the anniversary day of the burial of whoever among the dead faithful you want). Then, last of all in the homiliary is the material for the fast of the tenth month. This fast does not appear to be highly valued, falling as its does among material to be used ‘when you want’. Another solution is more likely. Paul included limited material for the fasts of the seventh and tenth months: primarily the sermons of Leo the Great originally preached on those occasions.26 He included two of Leo’s nine sermons on the feast of the tenth month (Tractatus 12–20), and three of his nine sermons on the fast of the seventh month (Tractatus 86–94). But Leo preached no sermons designated ‘for the fast of the first month’, although he has twelve for De ieiunio Quadragesimae (Tractatus 39–50), which is similar to how Paul designated them in his homiliary. Leo also recorded no sermon explicitly designated for the fast of the fourth month. It is likely that Paul’s selection and labelling of material was entirely conditioned by the paucity of Leonine sermons explicitly designated for these fasts. Or, potentially, the collections of Leonine sermons consulted by Paul simply did not transmit this material. We cannot rule out potential limitations in Paul’s sources. There is another possibility as well. Friedrich Wiegand noted that the homilies of Bede that Paul assigned for Ferias IV and VI of the week before Christmas may have been intended for the fast of the tenth month, even if

 23 Vogel, Medi­eval Liturgy, p. 312.  24 Vogel, Medi­eval Liturgy, p. 93.  25 DHK, p. 74.  26 See Leo, Tractatus septem et nonaginta, ed. by Chavasse; in English translation, Leo, The Letters and Sermons, trans. and introd. by Feltoe.

75

76

c ha p te r 2

they were not labelled properly. The Gospel readings that are assigned for those days (Luke 1. 26–38 and 1. 39–55) match those assigned for the fast of the tenth month in some Carolingian lectionaries.27 Paul simply failed to put all of his material together in the same place. When it comes to the fast of the first month, this fast usually coincided with the first week of Lent, for which Paul included plenty of general sermon material, including Leo’s sermons; he only failed to provide much exegetical material, a lack that would soon be supplied in some homiliary witnesses. This task was completed inconsistently in manu­scripts like Basel, Öffentliche Bibliothek der Universität, MS B.III.2 (St Gall, s. ix2/4) and BLB, MS Aug. perg. 15 (SW Germany, s. ix1/2), but more systematically in the ‘Lent homiliary of the ninth century’ highlighted by Étaix and possibly completed in or around the court of Louis the German.28 The same is true regarding the fast of the fourth month. Paul has a good deal of sermon material included for the week following Pentecost. This section was also supplemented in witnesses to the homiliary, like BLB, MS Aug. perg. 14 (SW Germany, s. ix1/2), BnF, MS lat. 16819.B (NE Francia, probably Compiègne, s. x), and BAV, MS Ottob. lat. 106 (St Cecilia’s, Rome, s. x or xi), and in a homiliary fragment, Bibliothèque Carnegie de Reims, MS 427 (Reims, probably Saint Thierry, s. x2/2).29 I conclude, then, that Paul may have tried to provide material for all four fasts, but he simply did so in a slightly disorganized, unclear fashion. Various users of his collection responded by adding in extra readings to Paul’s collection from an early date.

2.5. The Greater and Lesser Litanies The homiliary of Paul the Deacon also includes material designated In letania maiore (25 April). What is this occasion? For some time, as Joyce Hill has noted, scholars have been quite confused about the litaniae maiore and minore, their timing, and their observance.30 The standard account is that the litania minore was a late fifth-century invention of Bishop Mamertus of Vienne (for the three days before Ascension), while the litania maiore were established in Rome in the sixth century, perhaps by Gregory the Great (on or around 25 April). Moreover, it is usually assumed that the Roman practice was more universal. Hill has shown, however, that the Gallican observance was initially more universal. Moreover, most Frankish and Anglo-Saxon sources  27 DHK, p. 74, citing Ranke, Das kirchliche Pericopensystem, p. 267. The Comes of Murbach includes these readings for that date, as does the Comes in BnF, MS lat. 9451 (N Italy, s. viii/ ix). See Amiet, ‘Un Comes carolingien inédit de la Haute-Italie’.  28 Étaix, ‘Un homéliaire quadragésimal du ixe siècle’. See below, pp. 225–30 for more details.  29 Reims, Bibliothèque Carnegie, MS 427 came to my attention through Étaix, ‘Les Homiliaires liturgiques de Saint-Thierry’.  30 The medi­eval sources are more confused about the spelling: litania and letania.

Per tot ius anni circulum

identify litania maiore with the Gallican fast, placing it immediately before the Ascension.31 Paul the Deacon’s homiliary is thus somewhat exceptional in clearly placing the feast for the period around 25 April. Hill observes relatively fewer sources from the period that join him in doing so, such as Canon 22 of the 836 Council of Aachen and a variety of ‘Romanizing’ liturgical sources, like Ordines Romani 21, the Hadrianum, and the Sacramentary of Padua. She also notes the Anglo-Saxon Council of Clovesho (747), which is one of the few sources to mention explicitly the differences between the Roman and Gallican/Anglo-Saxon observances. I note, however, that Paul’s provision of another entry in his homiliary, In letania quando uolueris, may point to his awareness of the Gallican litany.

2.6. In traditione symboli: Catechesis and Creed in Lent Another occasion is worth discussing. In traditione symboli is the title of one entry provided near the Fourth Sunday of Lent. This Sunday was labelled Dominica ante palmas in the homiliary and possesses its own set of readings. In traditione symboli follows as PD I:99 (GPD I:95). The title refers to a specific event within the initiation and formation of Christians, common from Late Antiquity: the moment when the Apostles’ Creed or Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed was recited, handed over, and explained, often over many days.32 Sometimes creedal formulae were explained to candidates for baptism and their sponsors, other times to the faithful in general. The general observation of some version of this event is known from the catechetical addresses of Church Fathers like Ambrose of Milan, Theodore of Mopsuestia, John Chrysostom, and many others.33 In Gaul, its observance is known from the sermons of Caesarius of Arles and from various liturgical sources.34 Similarly, its observance can be traced in Spain, Italy, and other locations from the fourth century onwards, albeit with significant unevenness.35 Within Ordo Romanus XI and in the

 31 See Hill, ‘The Litaniae maiores and minores in Rome, Francia and Anglo-Saxon England’.  32 Ristuccia, Christianization and Commonwealth in Early Medi­eval Europe, pp. 180–85; Spinks, Early and Medi­eval Rituals and Theo­logies of Baptism, pp. 109–33. Ristuccia’s doctoral work is also valuable: ‘The Transmission of Christendom’; see pp. 19–34, 43–45, 359–60 on this general topic, while Chapter 7 of his thesis (pp. 276–334) focuses on Lenten instruction more generally, linking a rise in instruction on the creeds and the Pater Noster with a rise in particular penitential and confessional practices surrounding them.  33 See the general overview and sources in Drobner, Lehrbuch der Patro­logie; repr. in English as The Fathers of the Church, pp. 299–303; also 298–99, 315–17, 326–27, 335–37.  34 Hen, Culture and Religion in Merovingian Gaul, p. 63.  35 Wright, ‘The Palm Sunday Procession in Medi­eval Chartres’, p. 368, n. 32, citing Tyrer, Historical Survey of Holy Week, p. 45. Tyrer refers to Canon 13 of the Council of Agatha (Agde, 506), Epistle 20.4 of Ambrose, the Missal of Bobbio, the Old Gothic Missal, and the Liber Ordinum. For Spain also: the sermons of Ildefonsus and the Liber Comicus.

77

78

c ha p te r 2

Reginensis Gelasian Sacramentary (BAV, MS Reg. lat. 316), a rather elaborate ceremony is described for the third or fourth week of Lent, tying it to the baptism of infants. Susan Keefe describes this event in her recent work Water and the Word. During an examination or ‘scrutiny’ of candidates for baptism (and their sponsors), the candidates are exorcised and then instructed: First, following an introduction by the priest, the beginning verses of each of the four Gospels is read, each by a different deacon, and after each reading the priest explains the symbols of the man, lion, ox, and eagle (traditio evangeliorum). The priest then gives an introduction to the Creed, and an acolyte takes in his arms a Greek-speaking male infant and recites the Nicene Creed in Greek, repeating it with a female infant. Then another acolyte takes a Latin-speaking male infant and recites the Creed in Latin, repeating it with a female infant (traditio symboli). Afterwards the priest gives a brief explanation of the words of the Creed. Finally, the priest recites the Lord’s Prayer and gives an explanation of the words (traditio orationis dominicae).36 A final scrutiny took place on Holy Saturday. After various prayers for the baptizands ‘comes the return of the Creed by the priest, who imposes his hand while walking around the infants chanting the Creed (in Latin), first to the males and then to the females (return of the Creed/redditio symboli)’.37 Keefe notes that in some manu­scripts of the Ordines Romani, it is the Apostles’ Creed, rather than the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed that was mentioned. She mentions a similar rite for De traditione symboli, albeit with different timing, envisaged in the so-called ‘Romano-Germanic pontifical of the tenth century’, but I shall exclude it from consideration here, since Henry Parkes has recently shown that the pontifical belongs to ‘the years around the millennium’, not earlier.38 The Bobbio Missal (SE Gaul, c. 700) describes similar events, but places the traditio symboli on Palm Sunday, rather than earlier in Lent, and contains a special Mass for the event.39 Keefe analyses slightly different versions of this event in texts written by Carolingian bishops: Jesse of Amiens, Amalarius of Metz, and Theodulf of Orléans; the event is missing in a similar text by Leidrad of Lyons, although that may reflect the nature of his work.40 Keefe concludes that Lenten scrutinies and the formal explanation of the Creed (traditio symboli), joined with various other ceremonies, were

He notes numerous patristic sermons, as well as the significance of the readings in the Liber Mozarabicus Sacramentorum and the Lectionary of Luxeuil.  36 Keefe, Water and the Word, i, 43–44.  37 Keefe, Water and the Word, i, 44–45.  38 Keefe, Water and the Word, i, 47; Parkes, The Making of Liturgy in Ottonian Germany, p. 187, also pp. 91–117.  39 Keefe, Water and the Word, i, 49. Cf. the essays in Hen and Meens, The Bobbio Missal.  40 Keefe, Water and the Word, i, 52–69.

Per tot ius anni circulum

a common, if not universal, part of preparing candidates for baptism in the Carolingian period.41 In Paul’s homiliary, a text is assigned for this occasion: a creedal exposition attributed to Maximus of Turin. The sermon is almost certainly the work of another author named Maximus, to whose genius may be traced many sermons going by the name of Maximus of Turin.42 I shall discuss the text in further detail in later chapters, but my question here concerns the placement of this entry. This compressed, highly doctrinal text stands somewhat uneasily with the material for Lent IV (Dominica ante palmas): a sermon on the prophet Jeremiah attributed to John Chrysostom, and a homily by Gregory the Great concerning Jesus’s confrontation with some antagonists ( John 8. 46: ‘Who among you convicts me of sin?’). The sermon of ‘Maximus II’ describes the Apostles’ Creed as a sign that unites the faithful and separates them from the heretics, akin to the password shibboleth in Judges 12. The sermon then provides a line-by-line exposition of the Creed that, while brief and often simple, does not avoid explaining Trinitarian doctrine. The significant differences between the text assigned for In traditione symboli and the material for Dominica ante palmas leads me to conclude that the creedal exposition must have been included as a reading or resource for teaching the Creed on In traditione symboli, rather than simply included with other readings for Dominica ante palmas. Its placement after Dominica ante palmas suggests it could have been used some time after that Sunday, rather than on it. No matter the timing of its celebration, during the Carolingian period, a time of great concern over the teaching of the Creed and the preparation of baptismal candidates, the homiliary provides a clear example of what such teaching might look like, thus taking its place alongside all sorts of other baptismal, catechetical, and educational literature recently surveyed by Keefe. Simultaneously, however, the sermon bears several interesting features. The Creed that the sermon expounds is an early version that lacks certain clauses; it is akin to the Creed of the Council of Aquileia or the Old Roman Creed of Rufinus and Marcellus.43

2.7. Anniversaries of Death A final occasion worth noting is In die depositionis anniuersario cuius uolueris defuncti fidelis. In his PhD thesis, Julian Hendrix surveyed the topic of prayer for the dead in the Carolingian period. What is worth noting is that a specific ‘office for the dead’, distinct from a Mass for the dead, ‘was a routine part of  41 See Keefe, Water and the Word, i, 150–55, for her synthetic comments on the diversity of practice.  42 Along with Clemens Weidmann, I take this second author to be ‘Maximus II’, a second bishop by that name in an Italian see, who drew on the work of Maximus of Turin while composing his own sermons. See Weidmann, ‘Maximus of Turin’, esp. pp. 369–70.  43 See Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, pp. 100–104.

79

80

c ha p te r 2

monastic liturgy’ by the early ninth century and probably even earlier.44 It is unclear whether Paul’s entry is meant for a specifically constructed ‘office of the dead’ (given its relatively vague rubric) or for a general Night Office observation that simply included this reading on an appropriate date.45 One explicit use of Paul’s readings may guide us. Within the Reichenau-St Gall Office of the Dead, which Hendrix has analysed from CSG 347 (s. xmed), one of the readings assigned by Paul the Deacon for this occasion was used: PD II:130 (GPD II:131).46 Part of this reading from Augustine’s Enchiridion is interspersed in the Reichenau-St Gall Office with Psalms and biblical lections.47 Hendrix discusses the performance and ‘emotional trajectory’ of the Office, including the reading provided from Paul, which assures its hearers that the dead are benefited by their prayers, provided that the dead were faithful in life.48 As Hendrix says, ‘The content of the office of the dead [at Reichenau and St Gall] suggests that one of its central tasks was to lead the performers on an emotional journey to a point where fear of death is replaced with joyful anticipation of salvation’.49 The lection in Paul’s homiliary played a significant role in this process, and Paul likely included it in his homiliary for such a purpose.

2.8. The Sundays after Pentecost There is a final point worth commenting on, and that is a curious omission in Paul’s homiliary. As noted above, there are not enough Sundays to fill the liturgical year: only forty-six, instead of fifty-two. The lack is most apparent in the post-Pentecost season; it provides four Sundays after Pentecost, six after Saints Peter and Paul, five after St Lawrence, and six after the Holy Angel. But this would only provide enough material to last until early November. Where are the remaining Sundays? This lack may point to the incomplete character of the Gospel lectionary in the eighth and ninth centuries. Perhaps Paul used a model Gospel lectionary while compiling his homiliary, and that lectionary simply stopped at a certain point in the post-Pentecost season. This is true of Carolingian lectionaries like the Comes of Würzburg and the Comes in BnF, MS lat. 9451 (N Italy, s. viii/ix), but also of various liturgical books from the tenth century onwards.50 Or Paul

 44 Hendrix, ‘Liturgy for the Dead and the Confraternity of Reichenau and St Gall’, pp. 115–16.  45 Hendrix, ‘Liturgy for the Dead and the Confraternity of Reichenau and St Gall’, p. 48 comes to the same conclusion.  46 Augustine, Enchiridion ad Laurentium 29:109–10, ed. by Evans, pp. 21–114, at pp. 108–09.  47 Hendrix, ‘Liturgy for the Dead and the Confraternity of Reichenau and St Gall’, pp. 47–48, 122–25.  48 Hendrix, ‘Liturgy for the Dead and the Confraternity of Reichenau and St Gall’, pp. 131–44.  49 Hendrix, ‘Liturgy for the Dead and the Confraternity of Reichenau and St Gall’, p. 146.  50 Cf. the various antiphoners, lectionaries, and missals surveyed in Hesbert, ‘Les Séries d’Évangiles après la Pentecôte’, esp. pp. 42–43, 46–47.

Per tot ius anni circulum

was aware of the lack of agreement over the assignment of Gospel lections in the late part of the year and chose to end at a certain period.51 In one sense, then, the homiliary was not a collection that covered each Sunday of the liturgical year, not until it was altered and amplified. Carolingian examples of such amplifications would include CSG 434 (St Gall, 872x883) and BnF, MS lat. 16819.B (NE Francia, probably Compiègne, s. x).

2.9. Paul’s Work, the Christian Year, and the Influence of Other Liturgical Books Overall, what sort of calendar is present in the homiliary of Paul the Deacon? And how is this homiliary similar to other liturgical texts of the period? A. G. Martimort stated that its organization is similar to that of the Gregorian sacramentary, and Eric Palazzo claimed that this similarity shows that the Hadrianum had already begun displacing the authority of other sacramentaries.52 This idea fits in well, at least superficially, with the fact that Paul the Deacon helped Charlemagne obtain the Hadrianum.53 However, the links between the two texts are perhaps overstated; there are some significant differences between Paul’s homiliary and the Hadrianum, let alone other Gregorian sacramentaries, as Yitzhak Hen has noted.54 First, the Hadrianum contains a great number of saints not contained in Paul’s collection; their sanctoral calendars are dissimilar. The Hadrianum, moreover, includes two Sundays after Christmas, where Paul has only one. It also bears no Sundays after Epiphany, only one Sunday after Pentecost, and only four Sundays in Advent, completely unlike the homiliary. It also contains the Assumption, when Paul’s text does not. It contains Ash Wednesday, and Paul does not. In other words, if Paul used the Hadrianum to compose the homiliary, he would have needed other texts as well, or he chose not to follow its calendar. In some ways, the homiliary is closer to the form of the Gregorian sacramentary that we see in the Sacramentary of Padua: Padua, Biblioteca Capitolare, MS D. 47 (Palace of Lothar I, c. 842–55). Both have one Sunday after Christmas and four after Epiphany. But the similarities are not complete. The sanctoral cycle is fuller in the Sacramentary of Padua as well. And, although both follow a non-continuous system of marking Sundays after Pentecost (unlike the continuous system of the Hadrianum’s supplement and various  51 See Hesbert, ‘Les Séries d’Évangiles après la Pentecôte’. Such disagreements were not resolved until the early modern period.  52 Martimort, Les Lectures liturgiques et les livres, p. 87; Palazzo, A History of Liturgical Books, p. 155. Cf. Barré, Les Homéliaires carolingiens de l’école d’Auxerre, p. 3.  53 See Vogel, Medi­eval Liturgy, pp. 80–82. The letter of Pope Hadrian mentioning Paul’s involvement is in the Codex epistolaris Carolinus 89, ed. by Gundlach, p. 626.  54 Hen, ‘Paul the Deacon and the Frankish Liturgy’, p. 218.

81

82

c ha p te r 2

other liturgical texts noted above), Paul’s homiliary is closer to the Gelasian sacramentaries in having five Sundays in Advent, not four. Given all of these differences, it is quite clear that the homiliary does not appear to depend on any known sacramentary. Its sanctorale and temporale differ from known models in many ways; where they are similar, the overlaps may be due to the extremely general character of Paul’s selections. Moreover, the fact that the homiliary contains a non-continuous system for marking post-Pentecost Sundays does not show that Paul deliberately modelled the homiliary’s calendar on a Gregorian sacramentary. Simply put, other liturgical texts, like lectionaries, used non-continuous systems as well, such as the Comes in BnF, MS lat. 9451 (N Italy, s. viii/ix). There was no need for a sacramentary to provide the system. No lectionary has yet been identified that precisely matches the system of Gospel assignment seen in Paul’s homiliary, though some are close. Paul’s lectionary resembles most closely an arrangement that was eventually associated with the area of Southern Italy from the tenth century onwards but which Antoine Chavasse has argued is representative of a Roman lectionary from the late seventh to early eighth century (again, I note that the Roman character of the lectionary is hypothetical).55 This version of the lectionary was no doubt known in various places outside of Rome in the early Middle Ages. I propose, then, that Paul had such an old form of the ‘Roman’ Gospel lectionary at hand, but this might simply have been whatever Gospel book was at hand as he completed his work, whether in Monte Cassino or somewhere else in Francia or Italy. We cannot know at this stage where that was or what the book was. In other words, where idiosyncrasies in the homiliary’s liturgical year occur, they cannot be easily explained, nor is it possible to speculate about what sort of liturgical texts Paul was using. He might have used a variety of texts, making conscious choices and departures from certain traditions, or he may have had only a few.

2.10. A Specific Liturgical Year? I have drawn attention to some peculiarities of the homiliary’s entries, such as its inclusion of only one Sunday after Christmas, four Sundays after Epiphany, four Sundays after Pentecost, and six Sundays after the Holy Angel. Such idiosyncrasies are sometime used by liturgical scholars to date collections of texts.56 Antoine Chavasse argued that the Comes lectionary structure contained in Cambrai, Médiathèque d’agglomération de Cambrai, MS 553 (NE Francia, s. ixinc) could be dated to the year 626 on the basis of the peculiar  55 See above, pp. 59–61.  56 For an overview of such research, as applied to the Gospel lectionary, see Vogel, Medi­eval Liturgy, pp. 349–53, as well as the literature cited there.

Per tot ius anni circulum

arrangement of its temporale and sanctorale. Its contents could only work in a year in which Easter fell on 20 April and other feasts and Sundays fell into a particular arrangement.57 He dates a putative Gregorian evangeliary to 597 for similar reasons.58 I should mention that I have some concern about Chavasse’s conclusions, especially his relative dating of lectionary systems, not least because his view of lectionary development is partly based upon Friedrich Wiegand’s reconstruction of Paul’s Gospel lectionary, the reconstruction discredited here. Some of his dates need revisiting. The general method, however, of examining structures in liturgical manu­scripts to determine the range of years in which they may have been composed, seems sound to me. It has been applied fruitfully to a variety of documents and is the current scholarly basis for dating the origin of all sort of liturgical manu­scripts. Until it is successfully replaced by a more convincing theory or model, I have little reason to doubt its results. Furthermore, I believe it may be applied, with caution, to the homiliary of Paul the Deacon. The arrangement I have uncovered in the collection is peculiar, and it may be an important factor to consider when determining its dating. A liturgical arrangement containing the Sundays outlined above, along with a fairly specific sequence of saints’ feasts, could only happen in a year when Easter fell on 8 April. And, within the years 783–800 (the broad period in which Paul is usually thought to have composed the homiliary), only two years match these dates: November 786 to October 787 or November 797 to October 798.59 Beyond matching the peculiar number of Sundays in the collection, within these years the feast of Sts Philip and James fall into the right place within the homiliary, along with the sequence of Sundays after St Lawrence, the Nativity of the Virgin Mary, and the feast of St Cyprian, followed by the fast of the tenth month and the feast of the Holy Angel. This approach cannot be pushed too far. Neither 787 nor 798 (nor any year, for that matter) can precisely match the exact sequence of feasts that are outlined as falling in Paul’s homiliary. After all, it places certain feasts in odd places, making the Decollation of John the Baptist fall between the 1st and 2nd Sundays after St Lawrence, an impossibility, given that those dates are fixed and occur nineteen days apart. It also places the Octave of Christmas before the first Sunday after Christmas, an impossibility; the two feasts can coincide, but the Octave can never be earlier. Similarly, St Martin and St Matthew are not in the proper sequence of the homiliary. But the general criterion of counting specific variable Sundays seems to work, save for the  57 See Chavasse, ‘Les plus anciens types du lectionnaire et de l’antiphonaire romains de la messe’, pp. 54–57.  58 Chavasse, ‘Les plus anciens types du lectionnaire et de l’antiphonaire romains de la messe’, p. 40.  59 For constructing model calendars, I have used the Faculty of Mathematics, ‘Perpetual Easter Calculator’, . I have cross-checked it with a similar tool: Binkley, ‘Medi­eval Calendar Calculator’, .

83

84

c ha p te r 2

period where Paul did not include enough material to finish out the year or where he erred in placing his material.

2.11. Conclusion In this chapter, I have given an overview of the liturgical occasions in Paul’s homiliary. Its record of Christo­logical solemnities is conventional. The sanctorale is limited and cannot be traced to any particular local interest. There are some peculiarities, such as the omission of, or confusion regarding, the fasts of the first, fourth, and tenth months. The Sundays in the collection are also interesting: not only are there not enough for the year, but they also may reflect a particular liturgical year, 786–87 or 797–98. I shall return to this point when I discuss the date Paul finished the collection. Below, I have included a list of all of the liturgical occasions in the homiliary, and the number and character of material assigned for their celebration, without, however, noting all of the specific homilies and sermons that are assigned, since the latter would take up too much space. I have labelled feasts in the way they are represented in most early manu­scripts of the homiliary, even where the labelling appears inconsistent (e.g. ‘Ebdomada’ and ‘Dominica’ or ‘Epiphania’ and ‘Theophania’). I have described patristic material as a ‘homily’ or ‘sermon’ or even a relatio, guided by the homiliary’s own pattern of labelling its material, which is idiosyncratic. I will not enter here into a long discussion of the difference between homilies and sermons, which I discuss in later chapters. It is enough to note at this time that Paul’s homiliary primarily uses homily as a label for line-by-line exegetical preaching while a sermon is a slightly freer composition, organized topically.60 But the labelling is not wholly consistent. I also beg the indulgence of my readers: a full, critical edition of the homiliary’s rubrics would be an important component of a new reconstruction of Paul’s text, along the model of that put forth by Reginald Grégoire. I hope to someday complete one. But such a task is both revealing and complex. Liturgical historians will need to accept this preliminary reconstruction of rubrics as what it is: a simplification. See section 4.7 for more details on rubric variation.

 60 See pp. 105–07 and 164–68 for more detail. For a discussion of such distinctions, see Mohrmann, ‘Praedicare–Tractare–Sermo’; Barré, Les Homéliaires carolingiens de l’école d’Auxerre, pp. 13–14; HLM, pp. 19–25; and the summary in Hall, ‘The Early Medi­eval Sermon’, pp. 203–06.

Per tot ius anni circulum

2.12. Outline of the Winter Volume: The Fifth Sunday before Christmas to Holy Saturday Ebdomada V ante Natalem Domini: 1 gospel excerpt, 1 homily. Ebdomada IV ante Natalem Domini: 1 gospel excerpt, 1 homily. Ebdomada III ante Natalem Domini: 1 gospel excerpt, 1 homily. Ebdomada II ante Natalem Domini: 1 gospel excerpt, 1 sermon, 1 homily. Ebdomada I ante Natalem Domini: 2 sermons, 1 gospel excerpt, 1 homily. Infra ebdomadam ante Natalem Domini: 2 sermons. Feria IV ante Natalem Domini: 1 gospel excerpt, 1 homily. Feria VI ante Natalem Domini: 1 gospel excerpt, 1 homily. Die Sabbati ante Natalem Domini: 1 gospel excerpt, 1 homily, 1 sermon. In Vigilia Natalis Domini, ad nonam: 1 gospel excerpt, 1 homily. In Natale Domini, nocte: 3 readings from Isaiah, 10 sermons, 2 gospel excerpts, 2 homilies. In Natale Domini, ad missas: 1 gospel excerpt, 1 homily. In Natale Sancti Stephani Protomartyris: 1 homily, 3 sermons. In Natale Sancti Iohannis Evangelistae: 1 sermon, 1 relatio, 1 gospel excerpt, 1 sermon. In natale Innocentium: 2 sermons, 1 gospel excerpt, 1 homily. In octavas Domini, id est in kalendas Ianuarii: 3 sermons, 1 homily.61 Dominica post Natalem Domini: 1 gospel excerpt, 1 homily. In Epiphania Domini: 3 readings from Isaiah, 7 sermons, 1 gospel excerpt, 1 homily. Infra ebdomadam Feria II: 1 gospel excerpt, 1 homily. Lectiones post Epiphaniam usque octavas: 8 sermons. In octavas Theophaniae: 1 gospel excerpt, 1 homily. Dominica I post Theophaniam: 1 gospel excerpt, 1 homily. Dominica II post Theophaniam: 1 gospel excerpt, 1 homily. Dominica III post Theophaniam: 1 gospel excerpt, 1 homily.

 61 This is a peculiar entry, as the first sermon concerns the Kalends of January and the two other ‘sermons’ are exegetical pieces on the Circumcision.

85

86

c ha p te r 2

In natale Sanctae Agnetis Virginis: 2 sermons. Dominica IV post Theophaniam: 1 gospel excerpt, 1 homily. In Purificatione Sanctae Mariae: 2 sermons, 1 gospel excerpt, 1 homily. In Septuagesima: 1 sermon, 1 gospel excerpt, 1 homily. In Sexagesima: 1 sermon, 1 gospel excerpt, 1 homily. In Quinquagesima: 1 sermon, 1 gospel excerpt, 1 homily. In Quadragesima: 2 sermons, 1 gospel excerpt, 1 homily, followed by 8 sermons. Dominica I in Quadragesima: 1 sermon, 1 gospel excerpt, 2 homilies. Dominica II in Quadragesima: 2 sermons, 1 gospel excerpt, 1 homily. Dominica III in Quadragesima: 1 sermon, 1 gospel excerpt, 1 homily. Dominica ante palmas: 1 sermon, 1 gospel excerpt, 1 homily. In traditione symboli: 1 sermon. Dominica in palmas: 1 sermon, 1 gospel excerpt, 1 homily. Feria II: 1 sermon, 1 gospel excerpt, 1 homily. Feria III: 2 sermons. Feria IV: 2 sermons. In Caena Domini: 1 sermon, 1 gospel excerpt, 1 homily. In parasceue: 2 sermons. In sabbato sancto: 2 sermons.

2.13. Outline of the Summer Volume (A): Easter to Saint Matthew De uespere sabbati paschalis: 1 sermon. In uigiliis paschae: 1 gospel excerpt, 1 homily. De die sancto paschae: 1 sermon. Sequentia de sancto pascha: 1 sermon, 1 gospel excerpt, 1 homily, 1 sermon. Item de secunda feria festi paschalis: 2 sermons, 1 gospel excerpt, 1 homily. Feria Tertia Paschalis: 1 gospel excerpt, 1 homily.

Per tot ius anni circulum

In Quarta Feria Paschalis: 1 gospel excerpt, 1 homily. in Quinta Feria Paschalis: 1 gospel excerpt, 1 homily. In Sexta Feria Paschalis: 1 gospel excerpt, 1 homily. Die sabbati post Pascha: 1 gospel excerpt, 1 homily. Dominica in octabas Paschae: 1 gospel excerpt, 1 homily. In Pascha annotina: 1 gospel excerpt, 1 homily. In letania maiore: 2 sermons, 1 gospel excerpt, 1 homily. Dominica I post octauas paschae: 1 gospel excerpt, 1 homily. Dominica II post octatavas paschae: 1 gospel excerpt, 1 homily. Dominica III post octavas paschae: 1 gospel excerpt, 1 homily. In natale sanctorum apostolorum Philippi et Iacobi: 1 gospel excerpt, 1 homily. Dominica IV post octauas Paschae: 1 gospel excerpt, 1 homily. In uigilia Ascensionis Domini: 1 gospel excerpt, 1 homily. De Ascensa Domini: 2 sermons, 1 gospel excerpt, 1 homily. Dominica post Ascensa Domini: 1 gospel excerpt, 1 homily. In sabbato Pentecosten: 1 gospel excerpt, 1 homily. De die sancto Pentecosten: 2 sermons, 1 gospel excerpt, 1 homily. De eodem die: 3 sermons. Dominica I post Pentecosten: 1 gospel excerpt, 1 homily. Dominica II post Pentecosten: 1 gospel excerpt, 1 homily. Dominica III post Pentecosten: 1 gospel excerpt, 1 homily. Dominica IV post Pentecosten: 1 gospel excerpt, 1 homily. In Vigilia sancti Iohannis Baptistae: 1 gospel excerpt, 1 homily. In natale sancti Iohannis Baptistae: 3 sermons, 1 gospel excerpt, 1 homily. In Vigilia sancti Petri: 1 gospel excerpt, 1 homily. De natali beatissimorum Petri et Pauli: 6 sermons, 1 gospel excerpt, 1 homily. In natale sancti Pauli: 1 sermon, 1 gospel excerpt, 1 sermon,62 1 sermon.

 62 Exegetical ‘sermon’.

87

88

c ha p te r 2

Dominica I post natale Apostolorum: 1 sermon. Dominica II post natale Apostolorum: 1 sermon. Dominica III post natale Apostolorum: 1 gospel excerpt, 1 homily. Dominica IV post natale Apostlorum: 1 gospel excerpt, 1 homily. Dominica V post natale Apostolorum: 1 gospel excerpt, 1 homily. Dominica VI post natale Apostolorum: 1 gospel excerpt, 1 homily. In natale sancti Laurentii: 3 sermons, 1 gospel excerpt, 1 homily. Dominica I post sancti Laurentii: 1 gospel excerpt, 1 homily. In decollatione sancti Iohannis Baptistae: 2 sermons, 1 gospel excerpt, 1 homily. Dominica II post sancti Laurentii: 1 gospel excerpt, 1 homily. Dominica III post sancti Laurentii: 1 gospel excerpt, 1 homily. Dominica IV post sancti Laurentii: 1 gospel excerpt, 1 homily. In natiuitate sanctae Mariae: 1 gospel excerpt, 1 homily,63 1 sermon. In natale sancti Cypriani: 2 sermons, 1 gospel excerpt, 1 homily. Dominica V post sancti Laurentii: 1 gospel excerpt, 1 homily. In mense septimo. Feria IV: 1 sermon, 1 gospel excerpt, 1 homily. Feria VI mensis septimi: 1 sermon, 1 gospel excerpt, 1 homily. In eodem mense septimo die sabbato: 1 sermon, 1 gospel excerpt, 1 homily. Dominica sequenti: 1 gospel excerpt, 1 homily. In sancti angeli: 1 gospel excerpt, 1 homily. Dominica I post sancti Angeli: 1 gospel excerpt, 1 homily. Dominica II post sancti Angeli: 1 gospel excerpt, 1 homily. Dominica III post sancti Angeli: 1 sermon, 1 gospel excerpt, 1 sermon.64 Dominica IV post sancti Angeli: 1 gospel excerpt, 1 sermon.65 In sancti Martini: 1 gospel excerpt, 1 sermon, 1 homily.

 63 The rubric directs the reader to find another homily elsewhere in the collection, as Grégoire noted under GPD II:76b; see HLM, p. 467. As discussed at the end of Chapter 1, I have relabelled this entry PD II:74.  64 Exegetical ‘sermon’  65 Exegetical ‘sermon’.

Per tot ius anni circulum

Dominica V post sancti Angeli: 1 gospel excerpt, 1 homily. Dominica VI post sancti Angeli: 1 gospel excerpt, 1 homily. In uigilia sancti Andreae: 1 gospel excerpt, 1 homily. In natale sancti Andreae: 1 gospel excerpt, 1 homily. In sancti Matthaei Apostoli: 1 gospel excerpt, 1 homily.

2.14. Outline of the Summer Volume (B): Commune sanctorum (the Common of Saints) In uigilia unius apostoli: 1 gospel excerpt, 1 homily. In natale unius apostoli: 3 gospel excerpts, 3 homilies. In natale unius sacerdotis: 1 gospel excerpt, 1 homily. In festiuitate beati Hilarii siue etiam Paulini Treuerensis necnon et Eusebii episcoporum [de confessoribus]: 1 sermon. Item de confessoribus: 1 sermon. In depositione unius confessoris: 1 gospel excerpt, 1 homily. Item sermo beati Fulgentii episcopi legendus in sancti Martini uel alterius confessoris: 1 sermon. Item de confessoribus: 1 gospel excerpt, 1 homily. In uigilia unius martyris: 1 gospel excerpt, 1 homily. In natale unius martyris: 2 gospel excerpts, 2 homilies. In natale plurimorum martyrum: 4 sermons, 4 gospel excerpts, 4 homilies. In natale virginum/In natale sanctae Felicitatis seu et aliarum sanctarum: 3 gospel excerpts, 4 homilies.66 In dedicatione Ecclesiae: 2 gospel excerpts, 2 homilies, 2 sermons, 1 gospel excerpt, 1 homily. In letania quando uolueris: 1 sermon. In die depositionis anniuersario cuius uolueris defuncti fidelis: 2 sermons. In ieiunio decimi mensis: 2 sermons.  66 This title is applied to PD II:124, but not to the other material assigned for a feast of a virgin or virgins. The homily in question, Gregory the Great’s Homelia 1 on Matt. 12. 46, speaks specifically of Felicity.

89

Chapter 3

En iutus patris Benedicti The Composition of the Homiliary

It is difficult to refer to Paul the Deacon as the ‘author’ of his homiliary.1 Assumptions about the nature of creativity and the necessity of originality might seem to preclude speaking about Paul in this way, and it is for these reasons that Paul and many other medi­eval authors have received the damning verdict of being ‘unoriginal’ or ‘derivative’ in the composition of their most significant works of prose and poetry.2 Even Paul’s Historia Romana and, to a certain degree, his Historia Langobardorum have received similar verdicts in the past, despite their wide reception in the Middle Ages and the considerable craft necessary to create them.3 For Paul’s homiliary, in which the majority of texts are attributed to the work of other authors, ‘unoriginal’ seems an apt description. The only text for which Paul claims direct authorial responsibility is his dedicatory verse, and even then, he wraps it in the rhetoric of humility. Paul’s work on his homiliary might be legitimate grounds for being considered an editor by today’s standards, one skilled in an arcane craft but not quite an ‘author’. Modern conceptions of authority and authorship, however, differ considerably from medi­eval standards and may be unsuitable to an age that valued tradition and authoritative compilations. To be derivative was no sin; ‘novelty per se was a grave offense’.4 Innovation had to be wreathed in the language of tradition.5 In examining Paul’s work on his homiliary, then, I commend a different approach.

 1 I am thankful to Dr Christopher Heath for many conversations on Paul as an author and for his kind provision of his dissertation, ‘Narrative Structures in the Works of Paul the Deacon’, now published as The Narrative Worlds of Paul the Deacon: Between Empires and Identities in Lombard Italy (Amsterdam, 2017).  2 Curtius, European Literature and the Latin Middle Ages, p. 293. See Marianne Pollheimer’s notice of similar statements about Rabanus Maurus: ‘Hrabanus Maurus’, p. 203. Concerning Bede, see Jenkins, ‘Bede as Exegete and Theo­logian’, p. 167; also in the same volume, James, ‘The Manu­scripts of Bede’, p. 230.  3 Heath, ‘Narrative Structures in the Works of Paul the Deacon’, p. 43.  4 Noble, Images, Iconoclasm, and the Carolingians, pp. 209, 217, 230–36. Cf. Admonitio generalis, c. 82, in Charlemagne: Translated Sources, trans. by King, pp. 219–20.  5 Cf. the essays in DeGregorio, Innovation and Tradition in the Writings of the Venerable Bede, especially Ray, ‘Who Did Bede Think He Was?’. See also Kendall, ‘The Responsibility of Auctoritas’.

92

c ha p te r 3

Any act of compilation or composition requires intention. One chooses some texts to include rather than others, implying certain selection criteria. I am guided here by what Paul Hilliard has said about extensive quotations in the Venerable Bede’s commentaries: ‘Works were chosen by him to be there. In other words, it does not matter if the words were [originally] Augustine’s. They become the sentiments of Bede by their very inclusion in his work.’6 The same is true of Paul’s work in compiling texts. As Henri Barré has said, in reference to the analysis of homiliaries: ‘Le compilateur, en général, n’est pas un simple copiste […]. Pris dans sa composition d’ensemble, l’homéliaire reflète une mentalité particulière, une orientation spirituelle déterminée, dont il est instructif de suivre les manifestations diverses’ (The compiler is, in general, not simply a copyist […]. Taken as a whole, the homiliary reflects a particular mentality, a fixed spiritual orientation, of which it is instructive to follow its different manifestations).7 Here, I am guided by how Paul presented his task and conceived of it, which is why I shall begin by considering the representation of his work in the prefatory contents of his homiliary. Only then shall I turn to consider the contents themselves, his methods of producing the homiliary, and the context in which he produced it, in order to gain a complete view of what it meant for Paul to create this text and what ‘mentalité particulière’ and ‘orientation spirituelle’ it reflects.

3.1. The Representation of Paul’s Work in the Homiliary’s Preface Paul’s preface comprises four items: • Paul’s dedicatory verse: Summo apici rerum • Charlemagne’s prefatory letter: the Epistola Generalis • A summary introduction: Incipiunt omeliae • A table of contents: capitula lectionum I have delayed a full discussion of these materials until now, since they offer a complicated representation of the homiliary as a cultural product, as well as the process by which it came together. Throughout this section, my investigation will be guided by two simple questions. How do the prefatory materials represent or describe the homiliary and its creation? Who is said to be responsible for its contents? That is, who is its author?

 6 Hilliard, ‘The Venerable Bede as Scholar, Gentile and Preacher’, pp. 102–03, brought to my attention by Christopher Heath in his paper ‘Carolingian correctio’.  7 Barré, ‘Homéliaires’, cols 600–601.

E n iut us pat ris Benedict i

3.1.1. The Dedicatory Verse (Summo apici rerum)

Paul’s dedicatory verse, Summo apici rerum, might seem a strange place to begin an investigation of the homiliary’s composition, but the manner in which he represents his task is important. The verse exists partly to praise Charlemagne and two other figures. In doing so, it reveals something significant about how Paul planned the reception of the homiliary. Throughout the poem, Paul minimized his efforts and emphasized those of others.8 He presented himself as ‘famulus supplex’ (a beggarly servant) and ‘humilis servus’ (humble slave) (ll. 2, 3), incapable of fulfilling his duties to the fullest extent.9 His task in creating the homiliary was ‘to be subject to [the] precepts’ of Charlemagne (l. 4), which were ordered with ‘a sacred utterance’ (l. 15). The result was ‘unequal to [the] remarkable will’ of his patron (ll. 7–8). In contrast, Paul lavished titles and competencies upon Charlemagne. The letter is addressed ‘Summo apici rerum regi dominoque potenti’ (To the summit of all things, the King and powerful Lord), to ‘celeberrime regum’ (the most celebrated of kings). Charlemagne is ‘a Christian defender and father’, the ‘Lover of Piety’, the ‘glory and wonder of the world,’ and the ‘Great King’ who is ‘exceedingly wise’, capable of correcting any faults in the work and of ensuring its success (ll. 1, 4, 6, 12, 13, 14, 18). The difference in status and competency could hardly be put in a sharper way. Paul only follows the wise directives of Charlemagne. Paul also states that the work of preparing Charlemagne’s commands was not completed by him alone; he had the help of two others. ‘Behold, the help of Father Benedict working wonders / By the help and pious merits of thy fidelis and of my Abbot / And Lord!’ (ll. 9–11).10 Paul credits the completion of the homiliary to the power of Monte Cassino’s heavenly patron, St Benedict, and to its abbot, Theudemar, two figures Charlemagne respected. After all, it was Benedict’s Rule that Charlemagne promoted in his kingdom,11 and after he sought the intercession of the saint and saw the auto­graph copy of the Rule in person in 787, Charlemagne asked for Theudemar’s counsel on monastic observances he hoped to understand and promote in his kingdom. He also brought the abbey under his protection.12 These lines introduce something new into Paul’s representation of his effort. He had already deployed the topoi of humility, and he extolled an earthly  8 For full Latin and English texts of the poem, see Appendix 1.  9 Throughout this section, I refer to the line numbers in Appendix 1. Cf. his letters to Adalperga, his abbot, and Adalhard, as well as his verse dedicated to St Benedict in Neff, Gedichte, pp. 12, 33, 71, 129.  10 ‘En iutus patris benedicti mira patrantis | Auxilio meritisque piis uestrique fidelis | Abbatis dominique mei.’  11 On his promotion of the Rule, see the account of the 802 Aachen council in the Annals of Lorsch: Charlemagne: Translated Sources, trans. by King, p. 145.  12 Theudemar, Letter to Charlemagne, ed. and trans. by Venarde. Charlemagne, Diploma 158 in MGH Diplomata Karolinorum, i, ed. by Mühlbacher, pp. 213–16.

93

94

c ha p te r 3

patron, Charlemagne. In mentioning St Benedict and Theudemar, however, Paul shows that the homiliary already has the backing of another patron and of a heavenly defender. St Benedict’s seal of approval and Theudemar’s precede Charlemagne’s, even before Paul asks Charlemagne to give his sanction to the work. The homiliary has a heavenly and saintly origin, which Charlemagne is exhorted to recognize. To return to the question of authorship, this dedicatory verse presents the homiliary as a product of multiple causes and authors. It came by Charlemagne’s ‘sacred utterance’, Theudemar’s help, Benedict’s miraculous power, and Paul’s humble efforts. In terms of who is responsible for the text, then, it is the product of a king, an abbot, a saint, and a scholar, and each of these dimensions must be kept in mind during the discussion of the homiliary’s production, reception, and use. The ideo­logical and theo­logical representation of Paul’s text, presented in Summo apici rerum, must be central to any understanding of it. I shall soon address some of the more tangible details regarding the homiliary’s composition and how these verses shed light on it, but first I want to bring in further evidence from the preface. 3.1.2. The Prefatory Letter (Epistola Generalis)

As Michael Glatthaar has noted and as I emphasized in my Introduction, the Epistola Generalis has most often been interpreted as a circular letter that Charlemagne sent to a great number of churches or ecclesiastical dignitaries in the Frankish Empire. It is often introduced as part of a raft of Carolingian reforms, interpreted alongside capitulary texts, the Admonitio Generalis, and the circular, programmatic letter De litteris colendis.13 However, Glatthaar argues on the basis of the Epistola Generalis’s transmission history that it is neither a legal document nor a circular letter.14 It only ever occurs within a small set of manu­scripts and is always a preface to an actual homiliary. It does not exist in more than one version with explicit signs of independent circulation (making it unlike De litteris colendis, whose wording was altered depending on its recipients),15 and the letter was not incorporated into various kinds of legal texts in a manner like the Admonitio Generalis. My own investigation has confirmed Glatthaar’s points. As I noted in my first chapter, the Epistola Generalis is present in twelve extant manu­scripts and was once present in two others. The Epistola Generalis did not circulate independently of a small number of actual homiliary texts. Moreover, the text of the Epistola Generalis was never altered to reflect new recipients, nor was it

 13 Glatthaar, ‘Zur Datierung der Epistola generalis Karls des Großen’, p. 455.  14 Glatthaar, ‘Zur Datierung der Epistola generalis Karls des Großen’, p. 457.  15 See Wallach, ‘Charlemagne’s De litteris colendis and Alcuin’, pp. 288–89; Martin, ‘Bemerkungen zur “Epistola de litteris colendis”’. Two differing recensions are known in Metz, Stadtbibliothek, MS 226 (s. xi/xii), a copy perhaps of the original text; and Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Laud. Misc. 126 (NE Francia, s. viii), a copy of Baugulf of Fulda’s version. However, see my Appendix 1.

E n iut us pat ris Benedict i

corrupted in any significant way. The text’s general opening ‘address’, then, is a static or fossilized opening, recording a particular moment or dedication. It is a preface to a particular collection and represents a particular moment; it is not a piece of Carolingian ideo­logy sent out as a general letter. The Epistola Generalis follows the structure of traditional epistolary or diplomatic documents, bearing intitulatio, inscriptio, arenga, narratio, and dispositio.16 That is, it begins with an identification of author and audience, then provides a description of the reasons for an action about to be taken and the circumstances leading up to that action, before formally accomplishing the action at the end. It rather interestingly lacks sanctio or eschatocol: there are no threats against those who do not use the homiliary, and there is no dating clause. This point is rather interesting, given Paul’s explicit request for some kind of ‘sanction’.17 The Epistola Generalis is addressed by Charlemagne to a particular audience: ‘Carolus, Dei fretus auxilio, rex Francorum et Langobardorum ac patricius Romanorum, religiosis lectoribus nostrae ditioni subiectis’ (Charles, supported by the help of God, King of the Franks and Lombards and also Patrician of the Romans. To the religious lectors subject to our power) (ll. 1–2).18 The identity of these ‘religious lectors’ has remained unclear, and often the subject of speculation. The phrase is frequently interpreted to include every person within Charlemagne’s kingdoms, but there is little reason to conclude it was addressed to such a wide audience. The answer may be simpler. Who are the lectors subject to Charlemagne’s power? Who might expect to receive orders and liturgical books directly from him? Most naturally: the lectors and other clerics working within his chapels to perform public liturgy and care for relics, sacred vessels, and books, especially at the church of St Mary in Aachen from the late 790s onwards.19 The letter is not an encyclical sent to everyone in the kingdoms of Charlemagne, but a text authorizing the use of the homiliary within the context of public liturgy at the royal court. (As such, this is one of the few texts that we can identify with confidence as being used by Charlemagne and read in his presence.)20 Only secondarily can we take the Epistola’s tone of general address as an indication of the potential universality of its audience. The letter’s intitulatio functions rather like a charter in this respect. Charters regularly address ‘all’

 16 Boyle, ‘Diplomatics’, p. 98.  17 Summo apici rerum, l. 19–20, 22: ‘Utque legi per sacra queat domicilia Christi | Nullius titubante fide […] Firmum oro capiat uestra sanctione uigorem’ (And that it may be read throughout the sacred houses of Christ with no one’s faith faltering […] I pray: may it receive strength from thy sanction).  18 See Appendix 2.  19 On Charlemagne’s liturgical ‘network’ of chaplains, priests, and cantors, see McKitterick, Charlemagne, pp. 340–45; see Barrow, The Clergy in the Medi­eval World, pp. 42–52 on clerical grades and duties and pp. 236–46 on duties of royal chaplains.  20 A point too rarely dwelt upon. On other such texts, see McKitterick, Charlemagne, pp. 330–45.

95

96

c ha p te r 3

dukes, counts, abbots, bishops, and other fideles of the king, but they were not sent out to all the fideles. Rather, they were granted to the individual or group receiving the grant of land, immunity, or whatever else was at stake, and they may have been read for the crowd present at the granting of the charter — the men of the court, the royal family, and the parties directly involved — perhaps in the context of a particular piece of court ceremony or liturgy.21 But even this public context cannot be taken for granted, which restricts the audience further. As McKitterick has noted, Charlemagne’s granting of charters did not even require the presence of the king.22 Such texts only had a universal audience when broader groups came into contact with or infringed upon the lands, immunities, or privileges granted therein. I suggest a new vision for the immediate context of the letter. Rather than viewing it as a circular letter, I propose considering it a foundational text, something read out at the unveiling of the new homiliary in Charlemagne’s court, along with a recitation of Paul’s dedicatory verse. Certain gestures may have accompanied the language that occurs in the text. Rather like a clerical or royal investiture, the Epistola Generalis says, ‘Tradimus’: ‘We hand [the volumes] over to Your Religion for reading in the churches of Christ.’ This statement could have been followed by an actual transfer of the volumes from the hands of Charlemagne or an official into those of the court’s lectors or chaplains, even into the hands of the arch-chaplain, Hildebald of Co­logne. It is in this specific context — a change in liturgical use at the court, surrounded with ceremony and the enunciation of Carolingian ideo­logy concerning orthodoxy, eloquence, and liturgical unity — that I locate the Epistola Generalis and its general language.23 The homiliary was a book made for Charlemagne for use in his chapels. Secondarily, the impact of this liturgical change and the court’s performance of what Charlemagne deemed ‘optimal’ liturgy came to influence the rest of the kingdom.24 The Epistola’s arenga lay out Charlemagne’s reasons for pursuing the homiliary’s creation. They are long and complex and thus need to be broken up a bit. They open in this way: Cum nos diuina semper domi forisque clementia siue in bellorum euentibus siue pacis tranquillitate custodiat, et si rependere quicquam eius beneficiis tenuitas humana non praeualet, tamen quia est inaestimabilis

 21 I am influenced here by G. Koziol’s investigation of diplomas as performative texts in The Politics of Memory and Identity in Carolingian Royal Diplomas, esp. p. 3: ‘Any given diploma was issued in order to institute, publicise, and memorialise a crucial alteration in the political regime’.  22 McKitterick, Charlemagne, pp. 188–97.  23 Cf. Nelson, ‘Was Charlemagne’s Court a Courtly Society?’, pp. 48–49.  24 See Leidrad of Lyon, Epistola ad Carolum, ed. by Dümmler, pp. 542–4­4; Vogel, Medi­eval Liturgy, pp. 85–90. Cf. Airlie, ‘The Palace of Memory’, pp. 3–7; Nelson, ‘Aachen as a Place of Power’.

E n iut us pat ris Benedict i

misericordiae Deus noster, deuotas suae servuituti benigne approbat uoluntates. (EG 3–7) [Since divine mercy guards us always, both at home and in public, whether during the events of wars or in the tranquillity of peace, even while human weakness does not have strength to repay anything to his benefits — still, since our God is of inestimable mercy, he benignly approves of wills devoted to his service.] Charlemagne’s first description of the pre-existing conditions that led to the homiliary’s production is quite simple. He was grateful to be alive. He had survived decades of warfare in Bavaria, Saxony, Italy, Aquitaine, and the Spanish March, and plots on his life at home, the latter perpetrated by the Frankish nobility and by his own family.25 And he believed he survived these attempts because of ‘divine mercy’, which both guarded him and inspired his and other wills to offer devotion through various acts of service. This complicated clause is followed by a great ‘Igitur’. Therefore, Charlemagne goes on to say: Igitur quia curae nobis est, ut nostrarum ecclesiarum ad meliora semper proficiat status, oblitteratam pene maiorum nostrorum desidia reparare uigilanti studio litterarum satagimus officinam. Et ad pernoscenda studia liberalium artium nostro &iam quos possumus inuitamus exemplo. Inter quae iam pridem uniuersos ueteris ac noui instrumenti libros librariorum imperitia deprauatos, Deo nos in omnibus adiuuante, examussim correximus. Accensi praeterea uenerandae memoriae Pippini genitoris nostri exemplis, qui totas Galliarum ecclesias Romanae traditionis suo studio cantibus decorauit. Nos nihilominus sollerti easdem curamus intuitu praecipuarum insignire serie lectionum. (EG 8–18) [Because the cares are ours, that the state of our churches should always proceed to better things, we busy ourselves with vigilant zeal to repair the workshop of letters, nearly obliterated by the indolence of our elders, and we invite whom we can to acquiring thorough knowledge of the study of the liberal arts, even by our own example. Among these efforts, some time ago, we corrected precisely, with God helping us in all things, all the books of the Old and New Testament, which were corrupted by the inexpertise of copyists. Afterwards, kindled by the examples of our parent Pippin of venerated memory, who decorated all the churches of Gaul with chants of the Roman tradition by his zeal, we took no less care for the same things, with a skilled intention, to stamp them [the churches] by a series of excellent readings.]

 25 E.g., the revolt of Pippin the Hunchback. See the entry for 792 in the revised Royal Frankish Annals and the Lorsch annals, in Charlemagne: Translated Sources, trans. by King, pp. 124–25, 139–40. Cf. also entry in the Moissac annals for 786, in ibid., pp. 154–55.

97

98

c ha p te r 3

Four more explanations for the homiliary’s origins are offered here, beyond Charlemagne’s already expressed intent of honouring God through grateful service. The homiliary is also a product of Charlemagne’s belief that it was his royal duty to improve the state of the churches: ‘curae nobis’ (the cares are ours). But the means for progressing the churches was through the restoration of cultural or educational excellence, personally and publicly. Charlemagne provided an example to the best of his ability and sought the company of others inclined to intellectual and spiritual labour, unlike the Merovingians who preceded him and his father, who (putatively) allowed culture to degenerate. We have here a reference in nuce to activities like the gathering of the court scholars and the attempt at creating a whole culture of study, in self-conscious contrast with the prior dynasty. In other words, the efflorescence of culture usually called the ‘Carolingian Renaissance’ is represented here as an action given deliberate shape by the efforts of Charlemagne in response to his understanding of divine grace and the needs of the churches, and it is out of this context that the homiliary arises. It is a product of the Carolingian Renaissance: presented as the culmination of one aspect of that rebirth of learning, which is represented in the Epistola Generalis as starting ‘iam pridem’ (some time ago), when the biblical text was emended by Charlemagne’s action, albeit with divine aid — not to mention the efforts of unnamed scholars who did much of the correction. But why is Bible correction brought up here, and how does it relate to the homiliary? Scholars have often been concerned with using the mention of Bible correction as a method for dating this document (for which it has some relevance, as I shall discus momentarily).26 Within the text itself, however, the citation of Bible correction is like the mention of a completed project: cultural rejuvenation had already occurred, a prime example of which was attention to the Bible. The Epistola Generalis represents Charlemagne as an effective ruler, someone capable of recognizing a need, addressing it, and moving on to something new. The last justification for the homiliary’s creation follows upon this statement that Bible correction has been achieved. Charlemagne was inspired by Pippin’s patronage of liturgy, his ‘decoration’ of the churches by the promotion of Roman chant. Pippin’s ‘studio’ (zeal/study) is paired with Charlemagne’s own expertise and his care to do similar things with ‘skilled intention’: to intervene in the practice of liturgy and similarly beautify the churches.27 And what did Charlemagne wish to do? He wished to create ‘a series of excellent readings’.  26 E.g. Ganshof, ‘La Révision de la Bible par Alcuin’, pp. 28, 30–32, citing Alcuin’s Letters 195 and 205. Glatthaar, ‘Zur Datierung der Epistola generalis Karls des Großen’, p. 462. Cf., however, Fischer, ‘Bibeltext and Bibelreform unter Karl dem Großen’; and Ganz, ‘Mass Production’ and McKitterick, ‘Carolingian Bible Production’, which show that Bible correction was a widespread effort.  27 For a synthetic account of patterns of liturgical intervention from the Merovingians onwards, see Hen, The Royal Patronage of Liturgy in Frankish Gaul.

E n iut us pat ris Benedict i

This is the first indication that the homiliary is a text intended as a liturgical intervention, for the purpose of embellishing church practice. Charlemagne’s description also takes a turn at this point and helps illuminate why the Epistola Generalis evokes so many purposes in its arenga (response to divine aid, general cultural renewal, correction of biblical readings, inspiration by his skilled father). His father, Pippin, could turn to an existing tradition of Roman chant to ‘decorate’ the churches, but Charlemagne was unable to turn to a source for his ‘stamping’ or ‘marking’ (insignire) of the same churches. Denique quia ad nocturnale officium compilatas quorundam casse labore licet recte intuitu minus tamen idonee repperimus lectiones, quippe quae et sine auctorum suorum uocabulis essent positae et infinitis uitiorum anfractibus scaterent, non sumus passi nostris in diebus in diuinis lectionibus inter sacra officia inconsonantes perstrepere soloecismos. Atque earundem lectionum in melius reformare tramitem mentem intendimus. (EG 19–25) [Finally, because we found the readings compiled for the Night Office by the fruitless labour (albeit right intention) of some to be less than suitable — readings that were appointed without including the names of their authors and that were strewn with infinite rounds of textual corruption — we suffered not in our days that dissonant solecisms should resound in the divine readings among the sacred offices, and we bent our mind to reform the course of the same readings into something better.] The Epistola Generalis admits that liturgical collections already existed for use in the Night Office, a service of prayer observed by clergy, monks, and many devout lay people (Charlemagne included), but it claims they were not worthy of public recitation and had to be replaced.28 This is why the Epistola Generalis has so many arenga: Charlemagne did something unprecedented for a king; he created a new collection of texts for liturgical reading, for an activity where only canonical and established authorities could be read. Charlemagne even broke with his own pattern of seeking texts from established sources, such as the Dionysio-Hadriana collection of canon law and the ‘Gregorian’ sacramentary (each obtained from a pope), as well as a copy of the auto­graph of the Rule of Benedict, obtained from Monte Cassino. He wanted a ‘correct’ book, not one that already existed.29 For his innovation, however, Charlemagne did bring in some help. Idque opus Paulo diacono, familiari clientulo nostro, elimandum iniunximus. Scilicet ut studiose catholicorum patrum dicta percurrens, ueluti e latissimis eorum pratis certos quosque flosculos legeret, et in unum quaeque essent utilia quasi sertum aptaret. Qui nostrae celsitudini deuote parere desiderans,

 28 I discuss this issue further in Chapter 6.  29 Vogel, Medi­eval Liturgy, p. 364.

99

1 00

c ha p te r 3

tractatus atque sermones diuersorum catholicorum patrum perlegens, & optima quaeque decerpens, in duobus uoluminibus per totius anni circulum congruentes cuique festiuitati distincte & absque uitiis nobis optulit lectiones. Quarum omnium textum nostra sagacitate perpendentes, nostra eadem uolumina auctoritate constabilimus, uestraeque religioni in Christi ecclesiis tradimus ad legendum. (EG 26–36) [The polishing of that work we enjoined to Paul the Deacon, our dear little client. Namely that, running studiously through the sayings of the Catholic Fathers, he might pick out from their most expansive meadows certain flowers, and he might join into one what would be useful, like a garland. He, wishing to be devotedly obedient to Our Highness, reading over the tracts and sermons of diverse Catholic Fathers and selecting what was best, has offered us readings without textual corruptions, bringing them together into two volumes through the circle of the whole year and fit for each distinct feast. After carefully assessing all of these by Our Wisdom, we confirm the same volumes by Our Authority and we hand them over to Your Religion for reading in the churches of Christ.] Paul entered the process of the homiliary’s creation when Charlemagne needed someone to ‘polish’ his work, to take what he had done in seeking to ‘stamp’ or ‘mark’ the churches and to turn his inchoate efforts into a usable book. Paul entered the scene as Charles the Great’s little client — as if Charles had already made his mark and all that remained was a little cleaning. This language should not mask the tall order Paul received. Charlemagne asked him to select useful ‘flowers’ from the ‘expansive meadows’ of the patristic inheritance. Paul had to return ad fontes, without the help of existing liturgical collections. It seems especially clear that he could not have drawn on collections like the homiliaries of Alan of Farfa or Agimund, which transmitted many texts anonymously. He also had to exercise his judgment in finding patristic texts and assessing the value of what he read, as well as determining what was most appropriate for the liturgy. The commission was remarkable, as was the fact that, upon submission, Charlemagne declared the homiliary to contain the ‘best’ of the patristic tradition, ‘without textual corruptions’. This is what the Epistola Generalis envisages the homiliary and its author(s) to be. The homiliary was a two-volume patristic antho­logy, well-organized and fitted for every necessary feast in the liturgical year, as well as free from textual error. It was the product of Charlemagne’s gratitude, royal duty, personal study, and devotion to his churches; it was also a product of his ability to assess and authorize the use of proper texts. It was self-consciously associated with a broader effort at reforming learning and correcting liturgical and biblical texts. Yet the collection’s final form was achieved by the work of Paul in gathering books, assessing them, selecting material, preparing clean texts, and ordering his material appropriately for a liturgical volume.

E n iut us pat ris Benedict i

Who, then, was ‘the author’ of these volumes? There is no single figure to name. Just as the Epistola Generalis credits Bible correction to Charlemagne (with God’s help), so it represents the homiliary’s creation as a joint effort of him and Paul (again, in response to divine initiative). I shall explore precisely how Charlemagne may have contributed to Paul’s work at the end of this chapter, by situating the composition of the homiliary in the patron–client dynamic invoked in this preface. It is noteworthy at this stage, however, the significant supports that are invoked to authorize the homiliary: St Benedict, Theudemar, Charlemagne, Paul the Deacon, and even the divine mercy and help. But let us now consider the final text from the preface, as well as the homilies and sermons in the collection. 3.1.3. The Descriptive Introduction (Incipiunt omeliae)

The descriptive introduction is the simplest and most basic text of the preface, largely shorn of rhetoric and ideo­logy. It states: In nomine omnipotentis dei. Incipiunt omeliae siue tractatus beatorum Ambrosii Augustini Hieronimi Leonis Maximi Gregorii et aliorum catholicorum et uenerabilium patrum, legendae per totius anni circulum, tam in singulis dominicis diebus quamque et in reliquis festiuitatibus, id est, natiuitate domini necnon Epiphania seu Pascha, ascensione quoque domini, siue Pentecoste, uel etiam festis Apostolorum Virginum Martyrumque seu Confessorum ieiuniorumque diuersorum. Quorum omnium ordine suo, adnotatio inferius continetur. Quicquid sane in hoc uolumine minus est in alio habetur. [In the name of Almighty God. Here begin the homilies or tracts of blessed Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome, Leo, Maximus, Gregory, and other Catholic and Venerable Fathers, to be read through the circle of the whole year, both on individual Sundays and also on the remaining feasts, i.e., the Nativity of the Lord, and, indeed, the Epiphany, Pascha, and also the Ascension of the Lord, and Pentecost, and also on on the feasts of the Apostles, Virgins, and Martyrs, or Confessors and diverse fast days. The notes for all of these, in their order, are below. Whatever is shorter in this volume may be found in another volume.]30 The descriptive introduction repeats some information from other parts of the preface, but differences are introduced that provide more specific detail. The readings are defined more clearly: they are ‘homilies or tracts’ from a specific set of authors, now recognized as standing within the mainstream of the theo­logical tradition of the Latin West. The Church Fathers often called the ‘four doctors’ of the Western Church are included — Ambrose, Augustine, Gregory, and Jerome — along with Leo the Great, Maximus of Turin, and  30 See Appendix 3 for full details.

101

102

c ha p te r 3

other, unspecified ‘Catholic and Venerable Fathers’. Other moments within this introduction are also important, such as the occasions for which the readings are intended, the mention of ‘notes […] below’, and the mention of ‘shorter’ or ‘abbreviated’ readings being contained in the volume. As I noted in the previous chapter, this brief introduction evinces an understanding that a limited number of days in the year deserve readings from the Church Fathers, glossing the simpler statement in the Epistola Generalis that the homiliary’s contents provide material for ‘the circle of the whole year’. This introduction only lists Sundays, feasts pertaining to Christ, and an unspecified number of other feast days and fast days. The names of the saints celebrated in the collection are not given, and no criteria are listed for how to discern which saints’ feasts are to be celebrated. What is important, however, is that this collection rather explicitly, if indirectly, avoids claiming that it contains enough material to read on every day of the week and yet it still claims to have enough for the whole year. This point may seem obscure or pedantic (save to some liturgical historians), but it is significant for understanding the collection, especially in relation to the liturgical directives and practices that preceded and followed it. Earlier texts, such as the Rule of Benedict or Ordines Romani XIIIA and XIV had few regulations regarding patristic readings in the liturgy.31 The Rule of Benedict simply required them to be read, along with the Bible,32 leaving the days on which to read them largely unspecified (without an effort to collate and interpret the Rule’s disparate instructions).33 On the other hand, Ordines Romani XIIIA and XIV — thought to describe certain Roman practices in the seventh and eighth centuries, and eventually followed by all sorts of clergy and monks in later years — specify particular biblical lections for occasions and seasons, distributed across the Old and New Testaments.34 XIV specifies for major feasts the readings of Jerome, Ambrose, and other Fathers, whether during Vigils or at another time, without specifying which of their writings. XIIIA simply mentions, ‘sermons or homilies of the Catholic Fathers’ pertaining to major feasts.

 31 For a survey of these rules and how patristic readings fall into them, see Billett, ‘Sermones ad diem pertinentes’, pp. 340–48 and 367–68. The most accurate descriptions and charts of the early medi­eval and (to some extent) late medi­eval Office are found in Billett’s The Divine Office in Anglo-Saxon England. These supersede, among others, Harper, The Forms and Orders of Western Liturgy from the Tenth to the Eighteenth Century, pp. 86–108; and Salmon, L’Office divin au Moyen Âge, pp. 32–43.  32 The Rule of Saint Benedict, 9.8, ed. and trans. by Venarde, pp. 58–61: ‘Books of divine authority should be read at Vigils, from both the Old and New testaments, and also commentaries on them written by renowned and orthodox catholic Fathers’ (‘Codices autem legantur in vigiliis divinae auctoritatis tam veteris testamenti quam nobi sed et expositiones earum quae a nominatis et orthodoxis catholicis patribus factae sunt’).  33 Such as The Rule of Saint Benedict, 11.7–10 and 14, ed. and trans. by Venarde, pp. 64–67 and 74–75.  34 Les Ordines romani du haut Moyen Âge, ed. by Andrieu, ii, 467–88, and iii, 25–41.

E n iut us pat ris Benedict i

Eventually, the imprecise and minimal character of these requirements, in both the Rule and the Ordines, gave way to more specific declarations regarding the assignments of readings, as is reflected in the Commentary on the Rule of Benedict by Hildemar of Corbie (c. 845),35 the rise of custumals,36 and the creation from the ninth century onwards of liturgical collections that contained extensive preassigned readings for every day of year,37 culminating in the Roman Breviary and various contemporary collections. Paul’s work stands near the head of all these trends and others; it began the process of specifying days and readings.38 ‘The notes for all of these [readings], in their order, are below. Whatever is shorter in this volume may be found in another volume’. These sentences provide a great deal of information about what Paul did. I showed in my first chapter that the mention of notes confirms that the exemplar prepared by Paul contained the tables of content found in so many manu­scripts, along with other organizational features mentioned below. The next sentence confirms that Paul not only brought whole texts into his homiliary, but also edited smaller portions so they would be suitable for particular feasts, consistent with the Epistola’s mention of the need for ‘flowers’ drawn from the best patristic sources. An incredible amount of selecting, editing, and ordering is reflected in these brief phrases, and it would be worth discussing this work briefly.

3.2. The Homiliary’s Organizational Features: Rubrics, Readings, Authors The organization of Paul’s homiliary is rarely discussed as an example or advance in book techno­logy. Wiegand and Grégoire mentioned or printed some of the capitula lectionum and rubrics from the manu­scripts they consulted.39 Neither discussed the significance of the collection’s layout and organization. However, the formatting and presentation of texts in manu­script books was a significant aspect of innovation in book production during the Carolingian Renaissance,40

 35 See Billett, ‘Sermones ad diem pertinentes’, pp. 342–45; and Hildemar of Corbie, ‘Chapter 14: How Vigils Are Performed in the Feasts of the Saints’, trans. by Guiliano.  36 Consuetudines monasticae, ed. by Albert.  37 Such as the homiliary of Rabanus Maurus commissioned by Lothar, those written at Auxerre, or local manu­script compilations like BnF, MS lat. 16819.B (NE Francia, probably Compiègne, s. x), among others. See Rabanus Maurus, Epistola 49, ed. by Dümmler, pp. 503–04; Étaix, ‘L’Homéliaire composé par Raban Maur pour l’empereur Lothaire’; and Pollheimer, ‘Hrabanus Maurus’, pp. 206–15; Barré, Les Homéliaires carolingiens de l’école d’Auxerre.  38 Billett, ‘Sermones ad diem pertinentes’, p. 345; Fassler, ‘Sermons, Sacramentaries, and Early Sources for the Office’, p. 35.  39 DHK, p. 17 (capitula of the winter portion; summer left unmentioned), rubrics are on each page; HLM, pp. 427–30 and 450–53 (capitula for each), the rubrics are throughout.  40 On the general features, see McKitterick, ‘Script and Book Production’, pp. 229–31. My section is partially inspired by the approach in Rouse and Rouse, ‘Statim invenire’.

103

104

c ha p te r 3

and it is certainly a feature of Paul’s work, in its ordering of the year and inclusion of tables of content, as well as in its accurate rubrics, hierarchy of script, and running headers, which are evidenced in many early copies of the homiliary. This is in marked contrast to be many other homiliaries that preceded Paul’s. In the Epistola Generalis, Charlemagne claimed to be frustrated with previous collections. He thus turned his mind ‘reformare tramitem’ (to reform the course) of the readings in other collections he had found. I suggest that this phrase may refer partially to Charlemagne’s desire for the more orderly organization of texts and the definition of readings. Many previous collections, such as the homiliary of Alan of Farfa or the homiliary of Fleury, were organized generally by season. Their contents bore little obvious relation to the biblical lections of each season or individual feast, save in broad outline, and they were especially disconnected to the Sundays of the year. The homiliary of Paul and Charlemagne, on the other hand, provides patristic readings that comment on Gospel texts for Sundays and feast days. It has very specific entries for each occasion. In this way, it would be more easily used with a whole suite of texts and, in one sense, required less independent judgement on the part of a person or community organizing liturgy. But there are also other, more obvious features of organization. The descriptive introduction mentions ‘the notes for all of these [texts], in their order, are below’. This notice is followed by tables of content that usually describe their material in the following way: they note the liturgical occasion and the reading(s), listing a Gospel text, a homily, a sermon, all three, or even more. When assigning a single homily, as in PD I:1 (GPD I:1), Paul’s homiliary provides this sort of notice: Ebdomada V ante Natalem Domini.41 Euangelium secundum Iohannem. De quinque panes et duo pisces. Omelia beati Augustini episcopi de eadem lectione. Sermons rarely occur on their own, but when they do, they take a particular format as well. In the event of a single sermon, as in PD I:104 (GPD I:100), in the midst of Holy Week: Feria III.

Sermo beati Leonis papae. Or, in the event of both a homily and a sermon, as in PD I:95 (GPD I:91): Dominica III in Quadragesima Sermo beati Iohannis episcopi de Moyse. Item euangelium eiusdem diei secundum Iohannem.  41 See section 4.7 below. Ortho­graphy and punctuation is standardized. Also the homiliary uses Ebdomada or Dominica interchangeably (respectively, ‘week’ or ‘Lord’s Day’).

E n iut us pat ris Benedict i

Abiit Iesus trans mare Galileae […] et reliqua. Omelia beati Gregorii papae de eadem lectione. Everything is outlined with relative precision. These notices about readings recognize a difference in genre between a homily and sermon (and occasionally other distinctions, such as relatio or commentum), and delineate the author and his status precisely: priest, bishop, pope; venerable, blessed, holy. The distinction between a homily and sermon generally corresponds in the homiliary to a difference between a text commenting on the Gospel (a homily) and a text teaching doctrine or describing a practice (a sermon).42 This genre, it must be said, breaks down somewhat in the collection, especially with material extracted from commentaries, but the attempt is notable. Meanwhile, the care regarding authors is clear: not only are they named, but they are listed according to their ecclesiastical rank and even according to a hierarchy of sanctity. Most authors are labelled ‘beati’ or ‘sancti’ (blessed, holy), but Bede is labelled ‘venerabilis’ (venerable), while Origen is often left unlabelled and therefore outside the vocabulary of recognized holiness. These labels could shift in later witnesses. For example, Bede is called beati on many occasions in BnF, MS lat. 16819.B (NE Francia, probably Compiègne, s. x) and other manu­scripts. These notices in the tables of content are linked to nearly identical rubrics in the main text of the homiliary. Unlike tables of content in other collections, like some manu­scripts of the homiliary of Alan of Farfa, these tables and in-text rubrics clearly direct the user of the book towards the appropriate occasion, work, and author for a particular day. There could be slight differences between the tables of content and the rubrics. For example, extant tables of content in Carolingian witnesses to Paul’s text are organized with a simpler hierarchy of script than the in-text rubrics. The tables often deploy a display script like Roman Rustic or Uncial for the occasion, while listing the Gospel reading, homily, and sermon in a simpler minuscule. But they could be recorded in a very simple minuscule throughout.43 Meanwhile, the in-text rubrics are almost always an occasion for the deployment of a number of different scripts, such as an alternating pattern of Roman Rustic for the occasion and the notice about the Gospel text, followed by minuscule and litterae notabiliores or minor decoration to begin sentences in the excerpt of the Gospel, returning to Roman Rustic again for the rubric about the homily, and finally settling on minuscule for most of the text of the homily, with a decorated initial for the first letter or the first line.  42 As observed by Smetana, ‘Paul the Deacon’s Patristic Antho­logy’, pp. 78–79. See below, pp. 185–90 and 246–47 for further detail. For a discussion of such distinctions, see Mohr­mann, ‘Praedicare–Tractare–Sermo’; Barré, Les Homéliaires carolingiens de l’école d’Auxerre, pp. 13–14; HLM, pp. 19–25; and the summary in Hall, ‘The Early Medi­eval Sermon’, pp. 203–06.  43 E.g., see the difference between BLB, MSS Aug. perg. 29 (Reichenau, s. ix2/4), fols 4r–6r and Aug. perg. 14 (SW Germany, s. ix1/2), fols 1r–2r. Cf. CSG 431 (St Gall, 850x872), pp. 2–4, which adds the patristic incipits.

105

1 06

c ha p te r 3

Figure 1. Rubrics, Gospel pericope, and homily, BLB, MS Aug. perg. 29 (Reichenau, s. ix2/4), fol. 12r. Image licensed for research purposes under Creative Commons. Badische Landesbibliothek, Digitale Sammlungen, .

E n iut us pat ris Benedict i

We can see such an example in BLB, MS Aug. perg. 29 (Reichenau, s. ix2/4), fol. 12r (see Figure 1). Occasionally, a more complex hierarchy is observed, as in CSG 430 and 431 (St Gall, 850x872), 433 (St Gall, 883x912), and 434 (St Gall, 872x883). All in all, the notices are distinct and cannot be passed over. The reader using the table of contents and searching for a text was well directed, and this must have greatly aided the speed with which material could be found for the appropriate occasion. Other features of organization were present as well. In numerous early witnesses of varied provenance, running headers mark the author and genre of the text on display.44 These usually take the form of abbreviations like ‘Oml’ (homelia) on the verso side and ‘Greg’ (Gregorii) on the recto. When the book is open, it is clear whose material is on display. These are further innovative book techniques to orient the reader. On the basis of these organizational features, present in most early witnesses, it is likely that the incorporation of such innovative book techno­logies was either part of the original commission of Charlemagne or something that Paul the Deacon believed would increase the utility and superiority of this composition. At the least, it points to extra effort expended in the design of the homiliary, both in organizing material and in laying it out. The usability and appearance of the text was as much a part of the composition as its other features.

3.3. The Collection’s Contents: Homilies and Sermons from Surprising Fathers The descriptive introduction states that Paul’s volumes contain ‘the homilies or tracts of blessed Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome, Leo, Maximus, Gregory, and other Catholic and Venerable Fathers’. It prepares us for a collection that mostly contains the sermons of those named, with the proportion swinging towards the first several names in the list. These authors were recognized authorities and some were mentioned explicitly in Ordo Romanus XIV as those who were read in Rome on key feast days. One is almost led to expect a lightly embellished Roman collection. But this is not the case at all. Out of 243 texts, Ambrose contributed a small handful and Augustine and Jerome a few more. Most of the collection, as many have noted in the past, is attributed to Bede, Gregory, Leo, and Maximus.45 See Table 5.

 44 E.g. BnF, MSS NAL 2322 (Tours, s. ix2/4) and lat. 9604 (Tours, s. ixmed); Troyes, Média­thèque du Grand Troyes, MS 159 (Moutier-la-Celle (?), s. ix or x); Bamberg, Staats­bibliothek, MS Patr. 155 (B.I.3) (Freising, s. ix2/4); Freiburg im Breisgau, Universitäts­bibliothek, Hs. 1122.1 (Francia, s. ix/x); the fragments in Wolfenbüttel, Herzog August Biblio­thek, Cod. 365 Helmst. (Mainz, s. ix1/2); the fragments of Chartres, Médiathèque l’Apostrophe, MS 57 (84) (W Francia, perhaps Chartres Cathedral or Saint-Père de Chartres, s. x).  45 E.g. Smetana, ‘Paul the Deacon’s Patristic Antho­logy’, pp. 80–86; see also Hill, ‘Ælfric’s Manu­script of Paul the Deacon’s Homiliary’.

107

1 08

c ha p te r 3

Table 5. PD content proportions by Paul’s attribution

Table 6. PD content proportions by modern identification

Maximus

55

22.6%

Bede

53

21.8%

Bede

53

21.8%

Maximus II

38

15.6%

Leo

35

14.4%

Leo

35

14.4%

Gregory

33

13.6%

Gregory

33

13.6%

Augustine

20

8.2%

Pseudo-John Chrysostom

17

7.0%

John Chrysostom

20

8.2%

Augustine

16

6.6%

Jerome

8

3.3%

Maximus of Turin

14

5.8%

Origen

6

2.5%

Jerome

8

3.3%

Ambrose

5

2.1%

Origen

6

2.5%

Fulgentius

4

1.6%

Ambrose

5

2.1%

Isidore

2

0.8%

Fulgentius

4

1.6%

Eusebius of Caesarea

1

0.4%

Peter Chryso­logus

3

1.2%

Severianus

1

0.4%

Pseudo-Augustine

2

0.8%

Isidore

2

0.8%

These numbers shift a Eusebius Gallicanus 2 0.8% bit, however, with different Caesarius of Arles 2 0.8% criteria, as Table 6 shows. Quodvultdeus 1 0.4% Once I recategorized texts that John Chrysostom 1 0.4% were attributed to the wrong authors, inasmuch as modern Eusebius of Caesarea 1 0.4% scholarship has detected such attributions, I ended up with a very different list. These latter numbers are not entirely clear; scholars do not agree whether some of the texts attributed to John Chrysostom or Origen are genuine or pseudonymous.46 Similarly, the texts of Maximus II have not received much attention, though they differ sufficiently from those of Maximus of Turin to make the division accurate enough.47 Yet the figures I have provided give the general breakdown of texts. Suddenly, Bede, Maximus  II, Gregory, and Leo are the big contributors. Three of the authors who are last on Paul

 46 On Origen, see various discussions: e.g. Morin, ‘Les Homélies latins sur S. Matthieu attribué à Origène’, p. 5; HLM, p. 441; Butterworth, ‘Introduction’, p. xxxvii. The sermons, however, have been included as genuine material by the modern editors of Origen: Origen, Werke, ed. by Klostermann with Benze. On John Chrysostom, see LHMA, pp. 186–87; Leroy, ‘Vingt-deux homélies africaines nouvelles’; Leroy, ‘L’Homélie donatiste ignorée du Corpus Escorial’; Leroy, ‘Les 22 inédits de la catéchèse donatiste de Vienne’; Alexander, ‘Criteria for Discerning Donatist Sermons’.  47 See Mützenbecher, ‘Zur Überlieferung des Maximus Taurinensis’; and Maximus, Sermonum collectio antiqua, ed. by Mützenbecher.

E n iut us pat ris Benedict i

the Deacon’s list surpass the ‘big names’ at the beginning, and two authors who did not get an initial by-line, so to speak, contributed more than anyone. This collection is, to say the least, an idiosyncratic conception of the ‘best’ of the patristic tradition. The extensive sources that Paul drew on become clearer, if we consider the specific works contained in the homiliary, represented briefly here. Rather than separating the falsely attributed texts entirely from the genuine, I have sorted them into categories in this list that Paul might have recognized, indicating where Paul could have drawn on collections of texts. 1. Maximus of Turin: a collection or, more likely, two collections of his Sermones. 2. Bede: Homeliae Euangelii; In Lucae euangelium expositio; In Marci euangelium expositio. 3. Leo the Great: Tractatus. 4. Gregory the Great: Homeliae in Evangelia; Dialogi. 5. Augustine: Tractatus in Iohannem; De Civitate Dei; De octo quaestionibus; Ennarrationes in Psalmos; and a collection or, more likely, several collections of his Sermones. 6. ‘John Chrysostom’ (including pseudo-/‘Latin’ Chrysostom and Peter Chryso­logus): De laudibus sancti Pauli; Sermones; and Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum. 7. Jerome: Commentariorum in Mattheum libri IV; Epistulae. 8. Origen/pseudo-Origen: Homiliae in Lucam; Homiliae in Matheum. 9. Ambrose: Expositio euangelii secundum Lucam; De uirginibus; and Sermones. 10. Fulgentius of Ruspe: Sermones. 11. Isidore of Seville: De ecclesiasticis officiis; De ortu et obitu patrum. 12. Eusebius of Caesarea: Historia ecclesiastica. 13. Severianus: Sermo (in another collection?). Thus, among thirteen attributed authors (and at least nineteen actual ones), Paul used at least twenty-seven separate works and likely more to bring together the 243 patristic entries in his homiliary, a considerable number and arrangement of texts. Moreover, Paul almost certainly read beyond the bounds of what was included in the homiliary in order to assess these works, to select what was ‘useful’ and ‘best’ out of the patristic tradition. The list of works I have compiled only represents the inner limits of his reading, not the outer limits. These numbers and considerations help clarify the scope of Paul’s work better. It was monumental. We can also dismiss the suggestion, frequently made, that Paul’s task was made easier by drawing material from the homiliary of Alan of Farfa. There is so little overlap between their work

109

110

c ha p te r 3

that it is exceedingly unlikely. (In any case, Antoine Chavasse has shown that the textual tradition of Leo’s Tractatus is quite distinct in each homiliary.)48

3.4. The Origins of Paul’s Texts and the State of Carolingian Libraries I have compared these numbers and patristic texts used by Paul with an assessment of the availability of such texts in the Carolingian period. Working from extant catalogues, chronicles, and some manu­script attributions, and leaving to one side those locations where few confident statements can be made, I have determined the following availabilities, noted in Table 7.49 There are some problems with the catalogues I used: nearly all are from the 820s or later. Still, the evidence is revealing. No Carolingian library possessed all twenty-seven volumes used in the compilation of Paul’s collection. This must be understood. Six fabulously well-endowed centres held about half of them during the Carolingian period as a whole: Lorsch, Reichenau, St Gall, Murbach, Würzburg, and Bobbio. But these centres only had such expansive holdings by the middle of the ninth century or later. Where evidence exists for their activities of acquisition, as at Lorsch and Würzburg, steady progression is evident. Lorsch moved from six to sixteen relevant texts over a quarter century or more; Würzburg went from three to fourteen. Additionally, their acquisition might have as much to do with the growing influence of the collection’s ‘canon’ and authority. We should be careful. Extant library catalogues are at times manifestly incomplete or contain contradictions, and more information from the extant manu­scripts would be desirable.50 However, few of the relevant patristic witnesses are extant for the works Paul included in his homiliary: only one or two known exemplars or fragments for a handful of works predate the ninth century. More might be done to reason backwards from ninth-century circulation, but that would require an independent study of each text, a task outside the bounds of this study.  48 Leo, Tractatus septem et nonaginta, ed. by Chavasse, pp. vii–viii, cxii–xciii.  49 I have collated and consulted material from many sources. See Catalogi bibliothecarum antiqui, ed. by Becker, for Oviedo, Passau, Benediktbeuern, Bobbio, and many others; Bischoff and Hoffmann, Libri sancti Kyliani; Gesta sanctorum patrum Fontanellensis coenobii, ed. by Lohier and Laporte; Chronique de l’abbaye de Saint-Riquier, ed. by Lot; Cartulaire de l’abbaye de Cysoing et de ses dependances, ed. by de Coussemaker; Receuil des chartes de l’abbaye de Saint-Benoît, ed. by Prou and Vidier; Mittel­alterliche Bibliothekskataloge Deutschlands, ed. by Lehmann and others; digital consultation of the Lorsch and Fulda catalogues in BAV, MS Pal. lat 1877, with the dating of Bernhard Bischoff in ‘Vatikan, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Pal. lat. 1877’, Biblioteca Laureshamensis Digital, .  50 See, e.g., Ganz, Corbie in the Carolingian Renaissance, pp. 124–58, which implies that Corbie only had five out of the twenty-eight works before 800 and only six out of twenty-eight after 800.

111

E n iut us pat ris Benedict i Table 7. Paul’s sources in Carolingian libraries

Auth.

Title

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

Max.

Serm.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

•

•

 

 

Serm.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bede

Hom.

 

 

 

 

•

•

•

 

•

 

 

•

•

•

 

In Luc.

•

•

 

 

•

•

•

•

•

 

•

•

•

?

•

In Mar.

•

•

 

 

•

•

•

•

•

 

•

•

?

?

•

Tract.

 

 

 

 

 

•

•

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leo Greg. Aug.

Chry.

Jer. Orig. Amb.

Hom.

•

•

 

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Dial.

 

 

 

 

 

•

•

•

•

•

 

•

 

 

 

Serm.

•

 

 

•

•

•

 

•

•

 

•

 

 

•

 

In Ioan.

 

•

•

 

•

•

•

•

•

 

•

•

•

?

•

De civ.

•

•

 

 

•

•

•

 

•

 

•

•

•

 

 

De oct.

 

 

 

•

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

•

 

 

 

In Psalm.

•

 

•

 

•

•

•

•

 

 

•

•

 

 

•

De laud.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Serm.

 

 

 

 

?

•

•

 

 

 

 

•

•

 

 

Op imp.

•

 

 

•

•

•

 

•

•

 

 

 

?

 

 

In Matt.

 

•

•

 

 

•

•

•

•

 

•

•

•

 

 

Epist.

•

•

•

•

 

•

 

 

•

•

•

•

•

 

 

In Matt.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

?

 

 

 

 

In Luc.

 

 

 

•

 

•

•

 

 

 

 

 

•

?

 

In Luc.

•

 

 

 

 

 

 

•

•

 

 

•

•

 

•

De uirg.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

•

 

 

Serm.

 

?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fulg.

Serm.

?

?

 

 

 

?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

?

 

Isid.

De offic.

 

 

 

 

 

 

•

 

•

 

•

•

•

 

•

De ort.

 

 

 

 

 

 

•

•

•

 

•

 

 

 

 

Eus.

Hist.

•

 

 

 

 

 

•

 

 

 

•

•

 

 

 

Sever.

Serm.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Texts

 

11

9

4

6

10

16

15

11

14

3

13

16

15

8

7

1: Saint Wandrille (Chron., 823–33). 2: Saint Riquier (Chron., c. 831). 3: Fulda (Cat., s. ix ). 4: Lorsch (Cat., s. ix1/2). 5: Lorsch (Cat., s. ix1/2). 6: Lorsch (Cat., s. ixmed–2/2). 7: Reichenau (Cat., 822–46). 8: Reichenau (Cat., s. ixmed). 9: Murbach (Cat., c. 840). 10: Würzburg (Cat., s. viii). 11: Würzburg (Cat. and MSS, s. ixmed). 12: St Gall (Cat., s. ixmed). 13. Bobbio (Cat., s. x). 14: Cremona (Cat., c. 985). 15: St Emmeram (Cat., c. 993). 1/2

112

c ha p te r 3

Reasoning with caution, however, and using these catalogues, it is evident that Paul could not have obtained all the necessary volumes for his homiliary in one place, even if he were working fifty years later than he did, after well-endowed monasteries and cathedrals had spent most of that century making deliberate acquisitions. Therefore, it is unlikely that he could have acquired all in a single location at the end of the eighth. If we consider the evidence in this table, we may note that some texts were used nearly everywhere, whereas others remained rare. The texts of Gregory, Bede, Augustine, and Jerome were commonly held. But only two centres record collections of Maximus of Turin (St Gall and Bobbio). Two had Leo (Lorsch and Reichenau), one possessed Ambrose’s De uirginibus (Bobbio), while extant references to Fulgentius and Origen on Matthew are ambiguous. This point strikes against previous descriptions of Paul’s task. Some scholars have worked on the assumption that Paul completed his task in Monte Cassino or at Aachen.51 Regarding the former, it is possible that Monte Cassino possessed a significantly better library than others, but we have little reason to think so. Most of the evidence for the contents of its library comes from the eleventh century; the monastery was still in a period of reconsolidation at the time of Paul’s work, after a long absence of the monks from the abbey.52 We might speculate that the Latin homilies of Origen were readily available in Italy and thus at Monte Cassino. It was in Rome that both Ambrose and Rufinus had begun significant translations of his work and disseminated them widely. Rosamond McKitterick, however, has recently highlighted the availability of the Latin homilies on Luke in North Francia, and Table 7 shows they were widely available in the Carolingian period.53 But even after these considerations, we have only accounted for a minority of the material in the homiliary. We should not postulate some kind of ultimate or ideal library or have unrealistic expectations regarding library holdings, unmoored from contemporary evidence. In particular, to imagine Charlemagne’s court as the perfect library or setting for Paul’s work would be mistaken. As McKitterick has argued, the libraries at Aachen and other royal residences have served as a ‘distraction’ for many scholars.54 Few conclusions can be made about Charlemagne’s holdings,  51 E.g., Glatthaar, ‘Zur Datierung der Epistola generalis Karls des Großen’, pp. 458–60; Fassler, ‘Sermons, Sacramentaries, and Early Sources for the Office’, p. 35.  52 Newton, The Scriptorium and Library at Monte Cassino, pp. 1–8; Witt, The Two Latin Cultures and the Foundation of Renaissance Humanism in Medi­eval Italy, pp. 57–58.  53 See McKitterick, ‘Cam­bridge, Corpus Christi College MS 334 and its Implications’; Bammel, Der Römerbrief des Rufin und seine Origenes-Übersetzung, pp. 505–37; Butterworth, ‘Introduction’, p. xxiv.  54 McKitterick, Charlemagne, pp. 347–50, 363–69. Charlemagne’s library was not known to possess all of these works, though working out the precise details of the court library continues to be a problem. See Bullough, ‘Charlemagne’s Court Library Revisited’, esp. at pp. 344–48 and 351–54. The earliest that Charlemagne appears to have begun the task of collecting books was in the 780s, perhaps while Paul was present or only a little before Paul had already left.

E n iut us pat ris Benedict i

beyond the fact that they were considerable (by the end of his life), perhaps contained many rare classical works, and may have stemmed from a general effort at acquiring texts in the 780s, as Bernhard Bischoff suggested in 1965.55 A major obstacle concerns where Paul first encountered the works of Bede. The dissemination of his commentaries in Italy has never been examined, nor has anyone considered in detail the transmission of the commentaries on the Gospels. Additionally, while Paul is one of our earliest sources for discussing the Carolingian reception of Bede’s Homeliae, and his witness was crucial to Germain Morin’s delineation of the original shape of that collection, it is unknown whether he first encountered the text at the Frankish court or in Italy.56 In the end, I have to conclude that Paul gathered his sources from various libraries, as McKitterick has suggested in passing.57 This should not surprise us. Activities of gathering and complaints about a lack of books were common in the Carolingian period, even several decades after Paul’s work. As John Contreni has pointed out: We are so used to reconstructing [Carolingian] libraries and to extolling book production […] that we sometimes fail to remember that it was indeed a rare library that could provide the scholar with all the texts needed. Hincmar of Reims and Martinus Hiberniensis were not the only scholars whose libraries were deficient. Rabanus Maurus envied the library Hilduin of Saint-Denis had at his disposal […]. Christian of Stablo had heard of Bede’s commentary on Luke, but could not lay hands on a copy of it. Angelomus of Luxueil’s library lacked a complete patristic commentary on Kings.58 Contreni notes other examples as well. We may remember the statement Thomas Aquinas delivered to his students, some five hundred years later, after visiting the relics of Saint-Denis: he would rather find the rare homilies of Chrysostom on the Gospel of Matthew than enjoy the whole of Paris or be lord over it.59

3.5. A Wandering Monk? Paul on the Road and in the Scriptorium The preceding discussion highlighted the necessity of considering Paul’s actual practice of working and editing, his ability to travel, and his preferred method for emending patristic texts. Luckily, Paul speaks about these topics in his  55 Bischoff, ‘Die Hofbibliothek Karls des Großen’; McKitterick, History and Memory in the Carolingian World, pp. 80–81; and McKitterick, ‘The Scriptoria of Merovingian Gaul’.  56 Morin, ‘Le Recueil primitif des homélies de Bède sur l’Evangile’.  57 See McKitterick, ‘Cam­bridge, Corpus Christi College MS 334 and its Implications’, p. 198.  58 See, e.g. Contreni, ‘Carolingian Biblical Studies’, pp. 84–85.  59 William of Tocco, Ystoria sancti Thome de Aquino, ch. 42, ed. by le Brun-Gouanvic, p. 172.

113

114

c ha p te r 3

letter to Adalhard of Corbie. This letter is transmitted in only one manu­script, as a preface to an edited copy of Gregory the Great’s Register: St Petersburg, National Library, MS F.v.I.7 (s. viii/ix). The manu­script was once thought to be the auto­graph copy of Paul by Amadeo Crivellucci and Olga DobiasRozdestvensky, but Hartmut Hoffmann has ruled out this possibility because the scribe writes in a North Italian Caroline minuscule.60 It is unlikely that Paul would have been so ‘up-to-date’ with his script, as a relatively old man who may have learned pre-Caroline minuscule while at the Lombard court. Moreover, as I note below, Paul claimed he did not write out this letter or the manu­script with his own hand, so it is impossible that this should be his auto­graph. As Paul said, when apo­logizing to Adalhard for the Register’s late arrival: ‘I wanted to fulfil your demands, but, as a poor man lacking copyists, I could not do this, not least because my incredible strength contrived to leave me bedridden from September until Christmas Day and the little cleric who wrote this same letter was not allowed to set his hand to the inkpot.’61 The manu­script is thus Paul’s ‘idio­graph’, a piece of writing whose composition he dictated and closely supervised, although there is a possibility that some of the notes and signs in the margins are in his own hand.62 As he states, he has sent the letters with some editing completed: Suscipe tamen, quamvis sero, epistolas, quas desiderasti, et quia mihi eas ante relegere prae occupatione totas non licuit, 34 ex eis scito relectas et, prout potui, emendatas esse praeter pauca loca, in quibus minus inveni, et tamen meo ea sensu supplere nolui, ne viderer tanti doctoris verba inmutare. Quibus in locis et forinsecus ad oram zetam, quod est vitii signum, apposui. [Receive the letters you desire, even if they are late. Although I was not allowed to examine all of them carefully because of my work, you should know that I examined thirty-four of them carefully and, as I could, corrected them in a few places. Among those where I discovered ‘too little’ (minus inveni), I did not wish to supply them with my own sense, lest I should appear to change the words of so great a teacher by inserting something. In those places and outside on the margin, I have placed the zeta, which is the sign of textual corruption (vitii signum).]63 We have a picture here of Paul’s own practice of editing and, most importantly, of editing a text written by one of the Church Fathers. He was quite capable of discerning errors and even thought he had the ability to supply the sense, but he was unwilling to do so. The practice that Paul urgently recommends to Adalhard is important:  60 Hoffmann, ‘Auto­grapha des früheren Mittel­alters’, pp. 17–19.  61 Neff, Gedichte, no. 31.12–17. My translation.  62 I am grateful to Evina Steinova for confirming that correction signs are present in the manu­script.  63 Neff, Gedichte, no. 21.13–17.

E n iut us pat ris Benedict i

Tua itaque fraternitas, si se facultas dederit, reliquas epistolas ad emendatiorem relegere studeat codicem, sed et loca, in quibus minus habetur, nihilominus supplere. Hoc tamen sanctitati tuae suadeo, ne passim propter aliqua, quae in eis minus idoneos […] publicentur. [If the faculty is given to your brotherhood, you should study to examine the remaining letters carefully with a more correct manu­script. But you should also fill in those places where there is ‘too little’. I beg this of your Holiness, lest what is less than suitable in them (minus idoneos) […] should be spread everywhere.]64 What Paul would have liked to do and what he begs Adalhard to do is to find another manu­script, by which to correct the errors in the text and fill in lacunae. We have here an analogy with the composition of the homiliary, in which the worry was also about texts that were ‘less than suitable’ in older liturgical compilations (minus idonee). Paul was unwilling to present Adalhard with a text that had such errors in it. I cannot imagine he would want to present Charlemagne with potentially faulty readings! His whole task was to create a homiliary to replace previous collections ‘strewn with infinite rounds of textual corruption’. If Paul followed his preferred practice, he would have done for his homiliary what he begged Adalhard to do with the Register: collected more than one copy of the texts included in the homiliary in order to establish a pure text whenever possible, or abandoned texts where it was not possible. What this implies further for Paul’s task of composition is this: he did not try to obtain or consult a single witness of each of the twenty-eight patristic volumes from which he excerpted material. Rather, he would have attempted to consult multiple copies, especially in the case of finding any dubious readings. He might have gathered or consulted three to four dozen volumes and perhaps many more than this.65 Another detail from this letter is important here: Paul’s claim that he could not fulfil Adalhard’s requests because he was ‘a poor man lacking copyists’ and the clerics around him were not free for other labour. What we can glean here is that Paul was a man accustomed to working with copyists. He did not write in his own hand but, like most others, preferred to work by dictation, even though he was capable of writing, at least when he was well. In considering Paul’s work on the homiliary, then, we must consider whether he had various kinds of assisting personnel who aided him in the copying of texts and perhaps even in the editing of them.

 64 Neff, Gedichte, no. 31.19–22.  65 We have a similar pattern in the work of Florus of Lyon some time later. He collected far more texts of St Augustine than made it into his final compilations. See Boodts, ‘Les Sermons d’Augustin dans la bibliothèque de Florus’.

115

116

c ha p te r 3

This realization adds to our understanding of Paul’s task in compiling the homiliary. No longer is it possible to envisage Paul sitting comfortably in one of Charlemagne’s libraries or in Monte Cassino, consulting with other scholars, while happily dipping quills into inkpots and writing out lines from patristic texts. Rather, Paul would have to purchase or borrow some texts, while travelling to consult others. Much more labour was involved in the production of this text, both Paul’s labour and that of others who assisted him, a sort of scholastic entourage (if I may call it that). This point naturally brings up the issue of resources and the character of Charlemagne’s patronage, along with his role in the composition of the homiliary. Any employment of scribal assistants for the labour of the homiliary would have been costly: to put things simply, people need somewhere to eat, sleep, and work. They often expect to be paid. The gathering of texts — necessarily involving travel or purchase — also implies the provision of room, board, and materials for multiple people, along with a small fortune’s worth of parchment for each volume bought or for the material and temporal cost to send for a text or for Paul and his scribes to consult texts in libraries. And how did Paul travel from place to place? He did not know Francia well enough to range about its roads without guidance or protection. We must imagine still others to procure horses or carts, draw up maps and act as guides, and find shelter each night on the road. Against any objection to this image, based on Paul’s limited freedom of movement as a monk, I note other material from the letter to Adalhard. The fact that Paul was free to travel for such tasks and was not simply bound to be at the palace at all times is, once again, clear. Paul states that he had hoped to travel to see Adalhard: ‘Cupieram, dilecte mi, aestate praeterita videre faciem tuam, quando illis in partibus fui, sed praepeditus lassitudine sonipedum ad te venire non potui’ (My friend, I hoped to see your face last summer when I was in those parts, but I was not able to come to you because I was bound by the weariness of my horse).66 Paul does not mention an obstacle stemming from his work for Charlemagne, his monastic vows of stabilitas at Monte Cassino, or anything else. He had the freedom to travel; in one sense, he was a wandering monk. Paul’s only limitation was that he was dependent on others’ resources and hospitality. As he testifies, he was bereft of ‘any bags of money’ or ‘piles of shining gold, silver, or riches’. He says, ‘Unless I gain life by my letters, I have nothing to give’.67 He was dependent on the patronage and hospitality of others. And it is in this key concept, patronage, that I shall draw together the varied strands of this chapter.

 66 Neff, Gedichte, no. 31.4–5.  67 Neff, Gedichte, no. 13.7; my translation.

E n iut us pat ris Benedict i

3.6. Conclusion: Paul and Patronage, Earthly and Heavenly Patronage was a reality in Paul’s life. It marks his works, the vast majority of which were written to a patron or by some kind of request or commission. This is the link between the various pieces of evidence I have considered in this chapter. The question of what the homiliary is and who authored it was found to have many answers, depending on whether one considered the contributions and perspectives of Abbot Theudemar, St Benedict, Paul, or Charlemagne. One could legitimately credit the creation of the homiliary to all four of these figures. However, patronage draws all of these issues together, and it also solves the problem I mentioned earlier regarding whether Paul or Charlemagne should be considered the author of the Epistola Generalis as well. The fact is that no one figure could have completed this task independently. Abbot Theudemar was presumably busy with other things. St Benedict, although his aid was invoked, was not in the habit of dropping homiliaries from heaven, apart from human agency. Paul did not have the resources for travel, for elaborate work, or even for his daily food and shelter. Charlemagne had neither the time nor the ability to carry through all his desires on his own, no matter how much he promoted the study of liberal arts by his own example. The homiliary only came about through the agency of them all, with Paul at the centre. It is Paul’s place in a wide network of patronage that made possible the creation of the homiliary. This is the paradox in which I locate Paul’s relationship with Charlemagne, which is not simply that of suppliant servant and munificent lord, even though it is described that way rhetorically. Rather, it is the relationship of a learned client aided by the prayers of St Benedict and backed by his abbey. Charlemagne was not his only patron. As Paul said in a letter to Theudemar and his brethren in Monte Cassino, when he had first arrived at Charlemagne’s court in the early 880s: Te itaque, pater dulcissime, vosque, o carissimi patres et fratres, inploro, pro me continue beatissimum communem patrem et praeceptorem poscere dignamini Benedict, ut suis apud Christum obtineat meritis, ut me quantocius dignetur reddere vobis […]. Superfluum vobis aestimo, ut effundatis preces pro nostris dominis eorumque exercitu, scribere, cum sciam vos in hoc ipso semper insistere; pro domno illo abate, sicut et facitis, Christum deposcite, cuius hic singularis post principalem munificentiam nutrior largitate.68 [Therefore, I beg you, sweetest father, and you, O most beloved fathers and brothers: deign to intercede for me continually with our most blessed and common father and teacher, Benedict, that he might obtain by his merits in the presence of Christ that [Christ] would deign to  68 Neff, Gedichte, no. 14.37–40, 50–52.

117

118

c ha p te r 3

return me speedily to you […]. I consider it superfluous to write to you, that you should pour out prayers for our lords and their army, when I know you always insist on this very thing. As you already do, cry out to Christ for our master, the abbot, by whose singular largess I am nourished, after the munificence of our prince.] To borrow the term of Peter Brown regarding the holy man in Late Antiquity, Paul can be conceived of as a ‘broker’; he was the node in the network, enabling others to tap into resources they could not otherwise access. He stood between powers and identities (royal, scholarly, holy) that variously invested him with strength, ability, and authority. And within this network, as this node, Paul’s abject humility was a necessary feature of his mediation. He could broker his relationships with all, and to the advantage of all, only by being a humble client, by praising Charlemagne and Theudemar and Benedict in his dedicatory verse and by making himself invisible. This is how he bought his life through his letters. The problem of who was the author of the homiliary thus begins to dissipate. Paul did not compose or write alone. He depended on others’ resources, others’ help, and others’ time to complete this task. He was not an ‘author’, in the sense of an individual who sat down to write a creative work by hand. He was, however, an author in that he was invested with the authority and the resources to carry out a massive project of research, reading and selecting authoritative works from a wide range of the works of the Church Fathers. He travelled. He gathered a small library and perhaps employed copyists and other personnel. He ordered and arranged and edited his material, using new techniques for the organization and use of texts, and he composed multiple prefatory materials that praised his patron, set out the purposes for the homiliary, and described its contents. Through all of this, he relied on his connections to Monte Cassino and to St Benedict for material, intellectual, and spiritual strength, praying for the ‘wonder-working’ of his heavenly patron to aid his work. And by doing this, he advanced Charlemagne’s desires to lead a cultural renewal, beautify the life of the Church, and lead a life of devoted service to the God who had raised the Carolingian family to power in Europe. This is what it meant for Paul to compose his homiliary. But what about a more basic question. How long did it take?

3.7. Postscript: Dating Paul’s Collection The most thorough attempt at reckoning with the homiliary’s date is Michael Glatthaar’s ‘Zur Datierung der Epistola generalis Karls des Großen’, mentioned now many times. Glatthaar notes that early attempts at assigning a date to the Epistola Generalis and homiliary appeared arbitrary. Etienne Baluze gave it a date of 788 without explanation, which many followed until the late nineteenth

E n iut us pat ris Benedict i

century.69 Others settled on the date of 786 because that was when Paul may have left the Frankish court, though that date, like many others in Paul’s life and like the date of his death, is uncertain.70 Felix Dahn noted that Paul’s dedicatory verse (Summo apici rerum) mentions the help of Theudemar and St Benedict; thus, he reasoned that the homiliary was completed at Monte Cassino 786x797.71 Most others have noted that the Epistola Generalis does not mention Charlemagne’s imperial title, thus making the dates as wide as sometime between 786 and 800: the Epistola Generalis describes Charlemagne only as ‘rex Francorum et Longobardorum ac patricius Romanorum’. This wider range of dates has occasionally been followed,72 but 786 is the date scholars frequently mention.73 Beyond the intitulatio’s provision of a terminus ante quem non, the preface lacks any obvious indications of the date of the homiliary’s completion. Some scholars have taken its mention of Charlemagne’s personal correction of the Bible as a reference to some specific effort: François Ganshof believed it referred to Alcuin’s correction and presentation of a Bible to Charlemagne in 800, while Glatthaar argued that it refers to the completion of the Maurdramnus Bible (772x781), due to the friendship between Paul the Deacon and Adalhard of Corbie.74 Ganshof accordingly dates the completion of the homiliary to c. 800, and Glatthaar dates it rather earlier: 787. Neither of these efforts fits the wording of the Epistola Generalis especially well and its emphasis on Charlemagne’s personal example: ‘pridem uniuersos ueteris ac noui instrumenti libros […] examussim correximus’ (some time ago, we corrected precisely […] all the books of the Old and New Testament).75 But the Maurdramnus Bible is

 69 Glatthaar, ‘Zur Datierung der Epistola generalis Karls des Großen’, p. 458; Capitularia regum Francorum, ed. by Baluze, i, cols 149–50.  70 Glatthaar, ‘Zur Datierung der Epistola generalis Karls des Großen’, p. 459. On dates, see McKitterick, History and Memory in the Carolingian World, pp. 66–71; Pohl, ‘Paolo Diacono e la costruzione dell’identità longobarda’; and especially Heath, ‘Narrative Structures in the Works of Paul the Deacon’, pp. 22–31.  71 Glatthaar, ‘Zur Datierung der Epistola generalis Karls des Großen’, p. 459, citing Dahn, Des Paulus Diaconus Leben und Schriften, p. 53.  72 E.g. the introduction to the Epistola Generalis, ed. by Boretius, pp. 80–81; Ganshof, ‘La Révision de la Bible par Alcuin’; Vogel, Medi­eval Liturgy, p. 362; Brown, ‘The Carolingian Renaissance’, pp. 22–23; Mordek, Bibliotheca capitularium regum Francorum manu­scripta, p. 1083; Hall, ‘The Early Medi­eval Sermon’, p. 222; Billett, The Divine Office in Anglo-Saxon England, p. 54.  73 E.g. Charlemagne: Translated Sources, trans. by King, p. 208; de Jong, ‘Charlemagne’s Church’, p. 118; Hen, ‘Paul the Deacon and the Frankish Liturgy’, pp. 218–19; Hen, ‘The Romanization of the Frankish Liturgy’, p. 115; Costambeys, Innes, and MacLean, The Carolingian World, p. 144; McKitterick, Charlemagne, pp. 315, 345; McKitterick, ‘Cam­bridge, Corpus Christi College MS 334 and its Implications’, p. 187. Glatthaar, ‘Zur Datierung der Epistola generalis Karls des Großen’, p. 459, notes others.  74 Ganshof, ‘La Révision de la Bible par Alcuin’, pp. 28, 30–32, citing Alcuin, Ep. 195 and 205; Glatthaar, ‘Zur Datierung der Epistola generalis Karls des Großen’, p. 462.  75 EG 12–14.

119

1 20

c ha p te r 3

especially unlikely. It was produced at Corbie and comprised six volumes of Old Testament texts, not the New Testament as well.76 To me, this evidence seems too inconclusive. Charlemagne’s assertions in the Epistola Generalis cannot easily be associated with any specific effort (though Alcuin’s may be the best candidate): Bible correction was a general Carolingian effort from the late 770s onwards and may have preoccupied Charlemagne until the end of his reign, if we are to believe the account of the Astronomer.77 Instead, it seems to me that the Epistola’s language, highlighted in this chapter, points to the completion of the homiliary sometime ‘late’ in the Carolingian renaissance, well after the gathering of scholars at the court, after Charlemagne’s studies of the liberal arts with Alcuin and others, and after his encouragement of the correction of texts, as seen in 789 with Admonitio Generalis, c. 72. The Epistola Generalis does not present the homiliary as an early effort of the Carolingian renaissance, but a late one, after many successes. Additionally, as I noted above, the Epistola Generalis conceives of the homiliary as an expression of the king’s gratitude for surviving threats abroad and at home, which best fits a time after the attempts on his life in 786 and 792, rather than a date close to 786. Glatthaar presents other proofs for a date of 787 that I cannot engage with here, but his array of evidence depends primarily upon four points or assumptions: first, that Paul’s mention of help from St Benedict and Theudemar implies the homiliary was completed at Monte Cassino;78 second, that Paul was able to complete the homiliary in the monastery’s library;79 third, that Paul was permanently in residence at the monastery after 786;80 and fourth, that Paul and Charlemagne must have met personally in Monte Cassino or Rome for Charlemagne to receive the homiliary, limiting the occasions of the handover to 787 or 800.81 All of these interpretations of the evidence seem unnecessary to me. Regarding Paul’s patronage, there is no reason to believe that the influence and help of St Benedict or Abbot Theudemar were limited to the environs of Monte Cassino, and I have shown that Paul had freedom to travel for the work of his patrons. I have shown that Paul likely travelled to collect his materials in a task that took some time, and I have dismissed the suggestion that Paul completed his work in a single place. Moreover, even if Paul did complete the work in Monte Cassino, he could have sent the homiliary to Charlemagne,

 76 Ganz, Corbie in the Carolingian Renaissance, pp. 44, 46, 132.  77 Fischer, ‘Bibeltext and Bibelreform unter Karl dem Großen’; see also Ganz, ‘Mass Production’ and McKitterick, ‘Carolingian Bible Production’; Brown, ‘The Carolingian Renaissance’, p. 23; Thegan, Vita Hludowici imperatoris, c. 7, ed. by Pertz, p. 592.  78 Glatthaar, ‘Zur Datierung der Epistola generalis Karls des Großen’, p. 460.  79 Glatthaar, ‘Zur Datierung der Epistola generalis Karls des Großen’, p. 460.  80 Glatthaar, ‘Zur Datierung der Epistola generalis Karls des Großen’, p. 469.  81 Glatthaar, ‘Zur Datierung der Epistola generalis Karls des Großen’, pp. 464–66.

E n iut us pat ris Benedict i

as he did other works, such as the Epitome of Festus (c. 786) and their later poetic exchanges.82 Furthermore, as I showed in the previous chapter, the liturgical year in Paul’s homiliary best suits either 786–87 or 797–98. The latter option seems best to me. Paul must have taken some time to select materials, collect them, and edit them after receiving his commission. The Epistola Generalis suggests a date after the renewal and reform movement was in full swing. Chapter 4 shall demonstrate that even the physical copying of the homiliary must have taken about a year to complete, without extraordinary effort. Finally, in Chapter 5, I reveal that the theo­logical materials closely follow the topics of preaching outlined in the Admonitio Generalis and that Paul’s collection strongly refutes Adoptionism: these also are features that reflect the climate of the 790s, not the 780s. If this is the case, I can even suggest how Paul’s panegyric Utere felix, praising Charlemagne as a Roman and Trojan ruler, soon entered the transmission history of Paul’s homiliary. Glatthaar suggests it may be original to the homiliary and was composed for it when Charlemagne and Paul met to exchange the homiliary in 787.83 This suggestion seems unlikely to me, given the poem’s presence in only two of the fourteen witnesses that preserve the preface. However, if the homiliary was completed in 798, Charlemagne may have brought it with him when he travelled to Rome for the Christmas celebrations in 800. The poem’s lines make the most sense within this context. Utere felix munere Cristi pluribus annis luxque decusque magne tuorum Carole princeps atque togatae arbiter orbis dardanidaeque gloria gentis.84 [Blessed one, enjoy the gift of Christ For many years, O light and ornament, Charles, Great Prince of your own, Toga-wearing judge of the world, And glory of the Dardanid nation.] This would also explain why many copies of the homiliary do not bear the poem. The homiliary was probably copied early on at the court, and the early copy or copies became the basis for most later extant witnesses. Utere felix was added to Charlemagne’s personal copy after the imperial coronation. After this alteration, it again became the basis for later copies; this is why BSB, Clm 4533 (SW Germany, s. ix3/4) and Oxford, Corpus Christi College,

 82 See Neff, Gedichte, no. 30, pp. 123–25; no. 33, pp. 135–38; and no. 34, pp. 139–42.  83 Glatthaar, ‘Zur Datierung der Epistola generalis Karls des Großen’, p. 470.  84 See Appendix 4.

121

1 22

c ha p te r 3

MS 255A (NE Francia, s. x) differ from most witnesses. In other words, the transmission history of the homiliary’s preface supports the completion of Paul’s collection before the composition of Utere felix, along with enough time for a copy or multiple copies of the homiliary to be made. Of course, if I am correct, Paul’s traditional date of death 796x800 must also be revised. Walter Pohl’s proposal of that time frame relies partly on a supposed lack of reference to the imperial coronation in Paul’s works, but Pohl did not consider or dismiss the evidence of Utere felix.85

 85 Pohl, ‘Paolo Diacono e la costruzione dell’identità longobarda’, pp. 413–14.

Chapter 4

Per sacra domicilia Christi The Dissemination of the Homiliary Where was Paul’s homiliary used, and how did it pass from place to place? Answers to this question have varied widely. From the early modern period, some scholars argued that the collection was used widely throughout the Frankish Empire. Such arguments were based on a limited range of evidence and were not able to take into consideration the manu­script witnesses. The physical dimensions of the witnesses were unknown, and knowledge of manu­script production has often been hampered by a lack of detail. Scholarly constructions of the homiliary’s dissemination rested instead on the language in Charlemagne’s Epistola Generalis — conceived of as a circular letter with legal force or authority, rather than as a preface. This document was interpreted alongside statements about preaching and the use of homily collections in Carolingian capitulary sources, before being joined to general evaluations of the content of the homiliary and an awareness of its considerable influence in the later Middle Ages. The nature of the homiliary’s dissemination has been left vague in terms of its extent, challenges, and processes. Joyce Hill described it as ‘very popular and widely circulating’, but how widely it circulated remains unclear.1 Malcom Godden claimed it ‘was designed from the outset for wide circulation’, and he assumes that Anglo-Saxon ‘ecclesiastics and laymen’ of the Alfredian period must have encountered Paul’s homiliary whenever they travelled in the ‘Carolingian territories’ or to specific places like the court of Charles the Bald, since the homiliary was ‘circulated to all the major churches and monasteries of [Charlemagne’s] empire’.2 Godden even mistranslated the Epistola Generalis to support his interpretation that Charlemagne ‘wanted to supply all his churches with lectionaries’.3 Further, the homiliary is often said to have ‘superseded’ or ‘replaced’ previous collections like the Roman homiliary, though to what extent it replaced them (and how and who knew it had done so) is never quite defined.4 Henri Barré claimed it was ‘imposed’ on the Frankish churches, yet that it was not used universally because Charlemagne lacked the power to enforce

 1 Hill, ‘The Litaniae maiores and minores in Rome, Francia and Anglo-Saxon England’, p. 216.  2 Godden, ‘Pro­logues and Epilogues in the Old English Pastoral Care’, pp. 446–47 and 449. Cf. Godden, ‘The Alfredian Project and its Aftermath’.  3 Godden, ‘Pro­logues and Epilogues in the Old English Pastoral Care’, pp. 451–52.  4 Clayton, ‘Homiliaries and Preaching in Anglo-Saxon England’, p. 212. Cf. Palazzo, A History of Liturgical Books, p. 155. It simply ‘gained rapid acceptance’.

124

c ha p te r 4

his decree.5 On the other hand, Thom Hall has stated that ‘Carolingian legislation […] ensured its proliferation’.6 Or, as he says more specifically in another publication, Charlemagne ‘promulgated this collection as the official homiliary of the Frankish kingdom and enforced its use during second nocturns of the night office from Septuagesima Sunday to Easter in every monastery in the realm’.7 No evidence whatsoever exists to show any enforcement of the use of Paul’s homiliary, especially in relation to such a specific point in the liturgical year, in the liturgy, or in monasteries. The Epistola Generalis and other materials in the preface use the language of authorization, gift, superiority, and the embellishment of practice, rather than imposition, as I noted in my last chapter. More care is needed in the use of terms. ‘Promulgation’ ought to be avoided; it is a term suitable to a legal context, in which a single authorized text is published to replace all others, as in the promulgation of new laws and the abolishment of others. It has rarely suited liturgical development before the sixteenth century. To draw an analogy from history, one can say that Books of Common Prayer were promulgated in England, but not that Paul’s homiliary was in Francia. The 1549 Book of Common Prayer was ‘passed by Parliament on 21 January, and was required to be in use by Whitsunday, 9 June 1549’.8 Parishes had to buy copies. The same was true in 1552, 1559, and 1662. The dissemination of Paul’s homiliary was not so. While Charlemagne declared other texts ‘less than suitable’ and his own to be ‘the best’, he did not send his missi riding about the country to suppress the use of other homiliaries. There was no Carolingian Thomas Cromwell, ready to be novelized by Hilary Mantel. In the absence of such a display of royal power, our task in tracing our text’s dissemination is more difficult, but we are not lacking evidence. What I shall explore now is the great variety of material available for discussing the production and dissemination of Paul’s work. First, I shall consider the evidence in the Epistola Generalis and other material often cited by scholars. I shall then move to the physical dimensions of the extant witnesses and their implications for dissemination, attempting as much as possible to be specific and clear about precisely how many resources it took to produce Paul’s homiliary (skins, lines, scribal time). Finally, I hope to draw in other evidence regarding the extent of dissemination from Carolingian literary sources and manu­scripts, concluding with an examination of the paths of dissemination through examining textual transmission.

 5 Barré, Les Homéliaires carolingiens de l’école d’Auxerre, p. 3.  6 Hall, ‘Latin Sermons for Saints in Early English Homiliaries and Legendaries’, p. 233.  7 Hall, ‘The Early Medi­eval Sermon’, pp. 219–20, emphasis added.  8 Jeanes, ‘Cranmer and Common Prayer’, p. 25.

P er sacra domicilia C hrist i

4.1. The Epistola Generalis and Dissemination I have dealt at some length with the Epistola Generalis in my previous chapter but should take some brief account of it here, since it has featured so often in discussions of the dissemination of the homiliary. Charlemagne’s preface addressed an audience in general terms: ‘Religiosis lectoribus nostrae ditioni subiectis’ (l. 2; To the religious lectors subject to our rule). But it had a specific audience, the court clergy responsible for Charlemagne’s royal chapels. I have argued that, contrary to many scholarly suppositions, the text is not a circular letter and that its general tone is best interpreted in the light of the ‘universal’ rhetoric of charters and other dispositive documents that are nonetheless addressed primarily to small groups of people. For this reason, the Epistola Generalis has little to tell us about the dissemination of the homiliary, beyond what light the transmission of its texts can shed regarding the relationships between certain manu­scripts. This new model for understanding the Epistola Generalis coheres well with other details in the text as well. Charlemagne’s stated concern for the use of proper texts in the liturgy, a concern within which the creation of the homiliary fits, is compared explicitly to the promotion of Roman chant by Pippin. As the Charlemagne puts it, Pippin ‘decorated all the churches of the Gauls with chants of the Roman tradition by his zeal/study’, and Charlemagne, ‘kindled by [his] examples’ took ‘no less care for the same things, with skilled intention, to stamp them [the churches] by a series of excellent readings’.9 This strong statement of intent could be taken to mean that Charlemagne wanted to see the homiliary used everywhere, or that Charlemagne actually succeeded in imposing its use everywhere. But this language must be evaluated with precision. Royal claims for the superiority of a new text, combined with desires or authorizing statements meant to pave the way for its adoption, do not automatically amount to evidence for dissemination or use. The text only tells us what Charlemagne thought of the collection and what he might have liked, not what he actually accomplished or even thought possible. To quote Rosamond McKitterick, originally in reference to Tours Bibles, ‘The emphasis [of the Carolingians] was on correctio and emendatio rather than on complete unitas, which simply was not and probably could not have been achieved.’10 And where unitas was employed rhetorically, we cannot forget that Charlemagne and other Carolingians were perfectly capable of using universalizing language regarding liturgical practice, when actual observance

 9 EG 14–18. ‘Accensi praeterea uenerandae memoriae Pippini genitoris nostri exemplis, qui totas Galliarum ecclesias Romanae traditionis suo studio cantibus decorauit. Nos nihilominus sollerti easdem curamus intuitu praecipuarum insignire serie lectionum.’  10 McKitterick, ‘Carolingian Bible Production’, p. 74.

125

1 26

c ha p te r 4

was diverse and known to be so.11 The use of Roman chant is an excellent example and provides an analogy. Charlemagne claims in the Epistola Generalis that Pippin had already ‘decorated all the churches of the Gauls with chants of the Roman tradition’. Yet Charlemagne ordered such a practice in Admonitio Generalis, c. 80.12 The introduction of Roman chant ‘for the sake of unanimity with the apostolic see’ had not been completed, even though it began a generation before. There seems to be no reason to believe that the homiliary effort of Charlemagne, hampered by a far greater series of material complications, could be accomplished in a much quicker fashion, due to the need to create and send extensive texts. Furthermore, the collection was not created for the same reasons, and its appeal would differ. Its use would not ensure liturgical conformity with Rome and the successor to St Peter, but conformity with the practice and aims of Aachen and Charles the Great. Its appeal was based on other criteria as well: the use of corrected texts, readings described by Charlemagne as the best selections from the Fathers. In other words, adoption of the text would have to rest also on the acceptance that this homiliary did indeed represent the best of what the tradition had to offer and that the eloquence of its readings was an improvement upon what had been gathered in previous collections. One would have to value Bede, Gregory, and Maximus over Augustine, Jerome, and Ambrose. Now, the language of the Epistola Generalis and the intentions behind it would not be without effect. Any text sponsored in such a way by Charlemagne could probably be assured of a good measure of circulation, even if its contents ended up being troublesome for the user and required supplementation, like the Hadrianum.13 But we should not overestimate the chances of its success and be tempted to use the language of universal acceptance.

 11 This point has been made repeatedly by Y. Hen in various publications. See Hen, ‘Paul the Deacon and the Frankish Liturgy’, pp. 217–19; Hen, ‘Unity in Diversity’; and Hen, The Royal Patronage of Liturgy in Frankish Gaul. See also McKitterick, ‘Unity and Diversity in the Carolingian Church’.  12 Admonitio Generalis, c. 80, in Charlemagne: Translated Sources, trans. by King, p. 218: ‘To all the clergy. That they are to learn the Roman chant thoroughly and that it is to be employed throughout the office, night and day, in the correct form, in conformity with what our father of blessed memory, king Pippin, strove to bring to pass when he abolished the Gallican chant for the sake of unanimity with the apostolic see and the peaceful harmony of God’s holy church.’  13 Vogel, Medi­eval Liturgy, pp. 80–81, 84–92, esp. p. 92: The Hadrianum ‘did not at once supplant [other texts …] despite the high authority of the “Sacramentary of Charles the Great” […]. Liturgical unification depended entirely upon a few famous scriptoria and their patrons and was never accomplished in a uniform manner […]; there was no religious authority capable, or even desirous, of imposing uniformity’.

P er sacra domicilia C hrist i

4.2. Capitulary Legislation and the Homiliary’s Dissemination I noted above that others have thoroughly surveyed the capitulary material regarding the possession and use of homiliaries, and I shall explore it briefly myself in Chapter 6.14 My primary point here is that, unlike Roman chant, there was never a requirement to own or use Paul’s homiliary. The only time a specific homiliary was recommended was in local episcopal statutes, and, moreover, such statutes commended the homilies of Gregory.15 With these caveats in mind, of course, we must realize that the general requirements for clergy to own homiliaries, along with the councils, assemblies, and other efforts at administrative control they represent (such as the work of the missi dominici), would have given clear impetus for the creation, adaptation, ownership, and use of homiliaries in general throughout the Carolingian empire. They provided favourable conditions, to which Charlemagne’s claim for the superiority of his text and the pull of its use in the court’s liturgy (at least during his lifetime and perhaps after) would have supplied even greater reason to own it. It would thus be right to note that Charlemagne, his missi, and several councils and bishops largely imposed the use of homiliaries of some sort upon the clergy, but that they only created very favourable conditions for the dissemination and use of Paul’s homiliary. They provided many, if not all, of the necessary conditions for its widespread adoption, but they did not create conditions entirely sufficient for it to be used everywhere.

4.3. Manu­script Production: The Physical Constraints on Dissemination Any sense of the necessary conditions for the dissemination of the homiliary has to rest on an evaluation of the physical characteristics of the extant manu­ scripts themselves, that is, on the material investment they represent; these facts can then guide an investigation of the homiliary’s dissemination. I rely on the concept of material investment here because there are few guidelines for thinking about Carolingian book production in monetary terms. Some guidance has been offered by Rosamond McKitterick: One may perhaps infer, especially with the little known about the more strictly comparable ninth-century Byzantine and the Jewish Cairo Genizah community’s book prices in relation to annual income, where a

 14 See, e.g., McKitterick, The Frankish Church and the Carolingian Reforms, pp. 80–84; Amos, ‘The Origin and Nature of the Carolingian Sermon’, pp. 139–76; McCune, ‘An Edition and Study of Select Sermons from the Carolingian Sermonary of Salzburg’, pp. 81–85.  15 Riculf of Soissons, Statuta, c. 1, in PL, 131:15; Hincmar of Rheims, Statuta of 852, c. 8, in PL, 125:774C–D; statutes in BAV, MS Ottob. lat. 261 (Francia, s. ixex), fols 130–35, c. 7, ed. by Werminghoff in ‘Reise nach Italien im Jahre 1901’, p. 582.

127

1 28

c ha p te r 4

book could cost as much as two-thirds of an annual income of an official of middling status, that a book in the Carolingian period could cost the purchaser a very high proportion of an income. The grander and more richly decorated the book the higher the cost.16 Paul’s work might be on the ‘grander’ end of the scale. On this basis, I think it is possible to estimate the cost of each copy of the homiliary to be comparable to one- or two-years’ worth of income, if not more, for a moderately prosperous individual. But, in the absence of such a clear basis, it is perhaps more prudent to talk in terms of material and temporal investment. Even with material investment, however, I have had to reconstruct data to some extent. Only one relatively pure and complete Carolingian witness to both volumes of Paul’s homiliary, produced in a single location, is extant. Most of our other manu­scripts are summer or winter witnesses lacking a companion volume, either by dint of survival or by design, or greatly abbreviated or expanded witnesses. BSB, Clm 4533 and 4534 (SW Germany, s. ix3/4) are that complete set. I noted in Chapter 1 that these copies are idiosyncratic, in terms of their arrangement, but they are quite useful in terms of their physical dimensions. They are of a modest size and were produced at the same time, with the same measurements and number of lines per column. Their physical characteristics provide some sense of how to estimate the size of some missing companion volumes to other extant witnesses and thus to reckon the material and temporal investment to make Paul’s homiliary. BSB, Clm 4533 (the winter portion) contains 242 folios, and 4534 (the summer portion) contains 286. Thus there is a total of 528 folios, with the summer portion about 15.4 per cent larger than the winter. There are nine other relatively pure witnesses that neither omit nor add more than ten items from Paul’s original collection. Their dimensions, folios, and lines per folio and per volume are noted in Table 8. A number of things are immediately apparent, mostly regarding variation. For instance, depending on the proportions of the folios and the size of script, the number of lines needed to copy a single volume of Paul the Deacon’s homiliary varied considerably, anywhere from a stunning 48,168 lines in a late Tours witness, ‘H’, to the 30,732 lines of ‘C’, made at Reichenau. This is revealing as the Caroline minuscule in both manu­scripts is quite small. Similarly, I should note that ‘C’ and ‘D’ are incredibly alike in measurements, script, and decoration; they were produced around the same time, as a collaboration between the monasteries of St Gall and Reichenau. Yet the variation between the two is a matter of over 6,000 lines. Finally, as another sort of example, the outlier in our table, ‘E’, was fairly small and was made with a single column format: it has only 15,540 lines. The number of lines would

 16 McKitterick, The Carolingians and the Written Word, p. 138. Cf. pp. 135–38.

P er sacra domicilia C hrist i

129

Table 8. PD manu­script production measurements listed according to volume

Winter fols

Summer fols

Columns

Lines

Total lines: Winter | Summer

Folio Dimen­ sions (mm)

A

242

286

2

24

23,232 | 27,456

300 × 225

B

183

 

2

36

26,352

329 × 230

C

 

197

2

39

30,732

420 × 320

D

 

231

2

39

36,036

430 × 300

E

 

259

1

30

15,540

327 × 215

F

 

214

2

42

35,952

293 × 273

G

 

238

2

37

35,224

340 × 219

H

 

223

2

54

48,168

390 × 290

I

 

195

2

39

30,420

375 × 270

J

 

312

2

32

39,936

400 × 300

 

A: BSB, Clm 4533 and 4534 (SW Germany, s. ix ). B: Angers, Médiathèque Toussaint, MS 235 (226) (W Francia, probably St Serge, s. x). C: Co­logny, Fondation Martin Bodmer, CB 128 (Reichenau, s. ix2/4). D: CSG 432 (St Gall, s. ix2/4), excluding pp. 467–541, which are a later supplement. E: Troyes, Médiathèque du Grand Troyes, MS 159 (Moutier-la-Celle (?), s. ix or x). F: BnF, MS NAL 2322 (Tours, s. ix2/4). G: BnF, MS lat. 12404 (Tours, s. ixmed). H: BnF, MS lat. 1897 (Tours, s. x). I: BnF, MS lat. 11699 (NE Francia, s. ix1/2). J: Bamberg, Staatsbibliothek, MS Patr. 155 (B.I.3) and BSB, Clm 6264a (Freising, s. ix2/4). 3/4

be over 31,080, if it were in a two-column format. It is thus more comparable to the others than it initially appears, at least for these purposes. It is more useful to look at means, rather than ranges alone. The average number of lines is 31,732, and the median 30,732. Considering the wide range of numbers on my table, this average and median seem like a conservative estimate of how large a single volume and thus a full set might have been in the ninth century, though some copies were certainly larger or smaller for all sorts of reasons. But these provide a firm basis for considering how many lines were contained in a complete copy of Paul’s homiliary and, thus, how long it would have taken to produce a copy. The amount of parchment is also significant: between 183 folios and 242 folios for the winter volume and 195 folios and 312 folios for the summer volume. Dimensions differ considerably as well, from 300mm × 225mm to 420mm × 320mm. To understand these numbers, however, in relation to homiliary production, I want to consider how many animal skins these folios represent. I shall address the number of lines in Table 8. Determining the number of skins is a difficult issue. It is not always clear what sort of animal skin was used for the production of parchment manu­scripts, nor is it entirely possible to know how large the animals slaughtered for skins in the Carolingian period might have been. Rosamond McKitterick, among

130

c ha p te r 4

others, has given some general guidance and examples.17 She set out cautious figures and measurements to use for calculating the number of skins used per volume, drawing on several studies, such as Ronald Reed’s study of modern livestock sizes and Rupert Bruce-Mitford’s study of the Codex Amiatinus.18 David Ganz has added figures from his investigation of Tours Bibles, showing that sheepskin could sometimes be larger than calfskin.19 Together, they are: Goat: Sheep: Calf: Lamb:

900mm × 900mm 525mm × 760mm 500mm × 750mm 300mm × 600mm

From these estimates, it seems lambskin would have been out of the question for many of the manu­scripts I have noted: only ‘A’ and ‘F’ are the proper dimensions. A small handful might have utilized some goatskin — for example, by splitting a skin of 900mm x 900mm into 450mm x 450mm, before folding and trimming — in order to reduce the sheer number of animals slaughtered for the production of a witness to Paul (e.g. ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘E’, and ‘G’). But most of the witnesses remain too large for this to be a realistic possibility, and studies of Carolingian agriculture do not suggest widespread or intensive raising and slaughter of goats, making such an event unlikely.20 In general, then, it is probable that the parchment came from sheep or calves, but I include goatskin in Table 9 for the sake of reference. The table reveals much. Most manu­scripts utilized folded bifolia. So the lowest possible number of skins used for a single volume is, in the case of ‘F’, 53.5 goatskins. But, given what we know about Carolingian animal husbandry, it is unlikely that goat would have been used exclusively or in large numbers. The numbers for sheep, calves, and lambs are arguably more likely, in which case, the lowest number for a single volume is 91.5 sheep- or calfskins, while the highest is 156 sheep- or calfskins. Considering only the use of sheep- or calfskins, the average number of skins used for a single volume would be 117 while the median is 115.5. Since the homiliary comprised two volumes, it seems that the number of skins used for a full set would be around 230 to 234 skins. This number is slightly below the number of skins used in the only complete set from the Carolingian period, ‘A’, at 264 skins, so it serves well as a conservative estimate. Many of these numbers would need to be adjusted if

 17 McKitterick, The Carolingians and the Written Word, pp. 138–41.  18 Reed, Ancient Skins, Parchments and Leathers; Bruce-Mitford, The Art of the Codex Amiatinus.  19 Ganz, ‘Mass Production’, p. 55. He cautiously notes, ‘The dimensions of Carolingian sheep and their price await study, but it has been suggested that sheep this size required available pasture throughout the winter.’  20 Duby, Rural Economy and Country Life in the Medi­eval West, pp. 8–11, 361–70; Wickham, ‘Pastoralism and Underdevelopment’, pp. 416–18; Verhulst, ‘Economic Organisation’, pp. 486, 495; Loveluck, Northwest Europe in the Early Middle Ages, pp. 68–69, 73. Similarly, Banham and Faith, Anglo-Saxon Farms and Farming, pp. 93–100.

P er sacra domicilia C hrist i Table 9. Animal skins used per volume of PD, calculated by bifolium

 

Goat

Sheep

Calf

Lamb

A

60.5 | 71.5

121 | 143

121 | 143

121 | 143

B

91.5

91.5

91.5

-

C

98.5

98.5

98.5

-

D

115.5

115.5

115.5

-

E

64.75

129.5

129.5

-

F

53.5

107

107

107

G

59.5

119

119

-

H

111.5

111.5

111.5

-

I

97.5

97.5

97.5

-

J

156

156

156

-

scriptoria did not, as a rule, use folded bifolia, but stitched in many half-sheets of skin. However, among the homiliary manu­scripts, this is not common enough to disrupt these figures by more than a few skins (see Table 9). My aim is not to be tedious or morbid in reviewing these numbers but to have a realistic sense of the material investment required or, more cautiously, actually used to produce the homiliary of Paul the Deacon or a copy of it. These are not small manu­scripts using few skins, like a single patristic or classical treatise or a small book of poetry, for which only four to thirty-five skins might have been used.21 The size of Paul’s homiliary represents a major investment or a luxury production, more akin to the size of a Bible. Furthermore, if the number of livestock slaughtered was so large, it becomes necessary to ask whether a single monastery, cathedral, or other religious community had that much spare parchment at any given time. Was it normal to slaughter that many animals in a single year for the sake of a single book, not considering the need for extra parchment for other sorts of manu­script production? And, beyond what was normal, what was possible? Would a centre have purchased parchment? And how much land might repeated production require? Some of these questions cannot be answered at this time, without further, more focused study of landholding and animal husbandry in the Carolingian period. Even then questions may prove elusive. Most of the figures available for calculating landholding from contemporary documents focus on two sets of numbers: (1) the total area of land named in the document or (2) total arable land available for raising crops, with the amount of land devoted  21 Examples used by McKitterick, The Carolingians and the Written Word, p. 140.

131

13 2

c ha p te r 4

to or necessary for pasturing animals left vague or unstated.22 Moreover, contemporary estimates regarding the amount of land necessary for pasturing animals are based on modern breeds and on estimates of cleared land,23 while the pasturing of animals in the Carolingian period took place with unknown breeds in a variety of cleared or woodland settings, as well as areas along the border of cleared land and woodland.24 About all it is possible to say is that early medi­eval livestock were somewhat smaller and seem to have required less pasturing than ancient or modern breeds.25 So we are reduced to some generalities. A full homiliary set would have required a great number of skins, therefore requiring a production centre to have extensive landholdings.

4.4. Difficulties for ‘Mass Production’: The Example of Tours, the Setting of the Court The average number of skins used (117 per volume) suggests the considerable amount of material resources needed to produce a full set of Paul’s homiliary. It gives us some general way of thinking about the ‘cost’ to produce the homiliary. Material investment is only one consideration, however, when evaluating the production and dissemination of the homiliaries. Temporal investment is another important factor: how long did it take to copy a witness to Paul’s homiliary? On this topic, the study of pandect Bibles from Tours and other comparative studies of manu­script production provide some useful guidelines. Tours Bibles were roughly 450 folios, measuring c. 480 mm × 375 mm (requiring 210–25 large sheepskins), in two columns with 50–52 lines per column. The number of lines produced was thus around 85,000–90,000.26 In terms of lines and skins, Tours Bibles are much larger than most witnesses  22 See Wickham, ‘Pastoralism and Underdevelopment’, pp. 413–23; Duby, ‘Le Problème des techniques agricoles’, pp. 270–74; Costambeys, Innes, and MacLean, The Carolingian World, pp. 238–39; van Bath, The Agrarian History of Western Europe, pp. 54–57; Duby, Rural Economy and Country Life in the Medi­eval West, p. 8; Verhulst, ‘Economic Organisation’, pp. 485, 491.  23 E.g. Chilonda and Otte, ‘Indicators to Monitor Trends in Livestock Production at National, Regional and International Levels’, . See also Chesterton, Revised Calculation of Livestock Units; Gill, ‘Converting Feed into Human Food’, esp. at p. 8. Other essays shed light on the necessity for consistent feeding patterns to result in consistent animal production and fertility, such as Beever Drackley, ‘Feeding for Optimal Rumen and Animal Health and Optimal Feed Conversion Efficiency’.  24 See Wickham, ‘Pastoralism and Underdevelopment’, pp. 417–20; Wickham, ‘European Forests in the Early Middle Ages’, pp. 504–09, 522–23, 525–27, 544–45.  25 Ward-Perkins, The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilisation, p. 145, citing Kron, ‘Archaeo­zoo­ logical Evidence for the Productivity of Roman Livestock Farming’; Banham and Faith, Anglo-Saxon Farms and Farming, pp. 77–78.  26 Some of these figures differ slightly from publication to publication. Estimates used here are primarily from Ganz, ‘Mass Production’, p. 55. Cf. McKitterick, ‘Carolingian Bible Production’; and Ganz, ‘Book Production in the Carolingian Empire’, especially at pp. 791–92 (on rates of writing lines) and 799–802 (on production and dissemination of texts).

P er sacra domicilia C hrist i

to Paul’s collection. According to various estimates, Tours produced these Bibles at the rate of about two per year, alongside other material originating from their scriptorium. A Bible might use only two scribes or as many as twenty-four, perhaps depending on how quickly it needed to go out. Moreover, the number and size of skins involved meant that Tours needed to engage in fairly heavy pasturing, steady animal breeding, and regular slaughter to maintain this output. They may also have acquired parchment from other centres, despite their vast landholdings. However Tours did it, such ‘mass production’ took considerable time and effort. Would the same be true for the production of Paul’s homiliary? It is difficult to tell without considering the number of lines used to copy out a volume. For copying, David Ganz has provided estimates of writing speeds, based on contemporary descriptions of book production, such as scribal colophons. He concluded that ‘it seems reasonable to assume that a skilled scribe could copy up to seven pages of twenty-five lines in a day’ (i.e. 175 lines).27 Michael Gullick’s assessment of Romanesque manu­scripts suggests a similar average (150–200 lines), albeit with some outliers (119 or 310 lines per day).28 Neither considers how many hours of work such labour would have taken. I note also that such a focus on lines does not take into account the issue of script size: two manu­scripts may have the same number of lines, but quite a different number and size of individual letter-shapes, perhaps affecting writing speeds. However, the focus on lines provides the best estimates available at the moment, and I shall apply such models to Paul’s homiliary, considering the average number of lines per volume. For the sake of argument, I shall assume that materials could be acquired at will and leave out the possibility of deteriorating script quality, delay, or other sorts of factors that might slow down production. Table 8 showed a wide range of average lines per volume: 15,540–48,168. This lower number occurs in a single-column work, while most of Ganz and Gullick’s examples come from two-column works; the lower number should thus be doubled in our figures, which draws it higher up into the average number of lines. The lowest number of lines thus comes from a different manu­script and the range is adjusted to 23,232–48,168. The average number is 31,732, while the median is 30,732. For a medium-sized witness to Paul’s homiliary, it seems 30,000 lines is a good estimate for a single volume, while around 60,000 lines would garner the full set. The homiliary’s 60,000 lines might be completed by a single scribe over the course of about 343 days of labour (60,000 lines ÷ 175 lines per day = 342.9 days). It would be difficult to provide that many days of labour in a single year. Work was not to be done on Sundays or on feast days, so the ‘work year’ lacks fifty-two Sundays, five Christo­logical feasts that do not always occur

 27 Ganz, ‘Book Production in the Carolingian Empire’, pp. 791–92.  28 Gullick, ‘How Fast Did Scribes Write?’.

133

134

c ha p te r 4

on Sundays (Christmas and Epiphany, with their Octaves, and Ascension), and at least eight to fifteen other major feasts, such as the four Marian feasts, Sts Peter and Paul, the ferias of Holy Week, and other feast and fast days. A maximum of three hundred days of labour may have been available each year and probably fewer. Thus, it would take a little over a year for a single scribe to copy a full set of the homiliary of Paul the Deacon. This estimate should be kept in mind not only for copies of Paul’s original work, but when considering the initial composition of the homiliary by Paul himself. It is not something that could have been made quickly or within a short time frame, as has sometimes been assumed in estimates regarding the homiliary’s composition.29 The work may have taken a year or more to copy out, even after Paul conducted research, found the texts he wanted to use, and edited them, as I discussed in Chapter 3. This figure must be used with caution, of course. I have constructed an ideal situation, based on the few estimates of writing speed available to us. I have excluded interruptions such as illness or other duties — though the scribe who did not also have to teach, preach, prepare and perform liturgy, or engage in pastoral activities of some kind was perhaps rare.30 I have also excluded the issue of time needed to prepare or acquire skins and inks, to bind the quires together after writing is completed, or to complete other time-intensive tasks like correcting, illuminating, or organizing material. If these tasks were completed by the same scribes, a point that is unclear, more time should be added to my estimate.31 Moreover, there is always the possibility that more than one scribe worked on a homiliary, in which case production time would be cut down. I have not yet been able to collate all the data from my survey of homiliary manu­scripts to describe the common practice in producing homiliaries in the Carolingian period, but the example of Bible production at Tours suggests that numbers ranged considerably. Anywhere from two to twenty-four scribes might participate in the production of a manu­script, meaning that production time would partly depend on the availability of scribes and resources at a given centre, as well as the sense of urgency. With all these cautions in mind, however, the completion of two or three homiliaries over the course of two years in a single centre seems possible. The copying of the homiliary implies a considerable dedication of temporal resources (time spent copying), as well as the material resources I noted above (skins). But what about the production of homiliaries at Charlemagne’s court? This is one of the locations implicitly suggested when the Epistola Generalis  29 Even in, e.g., Glatthaar, ‘Zur Datierung der Epistola generalis Karls des Großen’, where the author argues for a slightly later date for the finishing of the homiliary (787 instead of 786), a time frame of only a couple years is given for composition.  30 McKitterick, The Carolingians and the Written Word, pp. 125–26, 255–59; Parkes, Their Hands before our Eyes, pp. 88–94.  31 Ganz, ‘Book Production in the Carolingian Empire’, pp. 792–93.

P er sacra domicilia C hrist i

is discussed as a circular letter or as a text promulgating the use of Paul’s homiliary. I have noted the significant material and temporal investment that the collection represents: 460 skins and over a year’s worth of labour for a single scribe. In the case of Tours and its ‘mass production’ of Bibles, it was a well-endowed monastery, but its efforts could still only ‘mass produce’ enough Bibles for a select number of recipients at the rate of two per year, alongside other productions. It took nearly a century for Tours Bibles to attain a high level of dissemination. Even though the homiliaries have fewer lines, it seems unlikely that the court or any other location could commit to the same rate of production as Tours, without making a concerted effort. If mass production were undertaken anywhere, only twenty-eight to forty-two copies might be completed by the end of Charlemagne’s life, if the homiliary was composed in 786/87 (the traditional date), or perhaps only a maximum of sixteen to twenty-four copies, if the homiliary was completed in 797/98 (the date I have proposed). On the other hand, if we cannot envisage such a scenario, as I suspect we cannot, estimates would have to be lower. Perhaps only five to ten homiliaries could be completed at the court or in other scriptoria before the end of Charlemagne’s life. The homiliary would have been disseminated at a slow pace. A slow rate of dissemination would not suffice for the great number of cathedrals and monasteries in the Frankish kingdoms. We know of over two hundred cathedral cities in the Frankish kingdoms at the time of Charlemagne and perhaps twice as many monasteries, thus yielding over six hundred significant religious sites with numerous clergy celebrating some version of the Night Office, even without considering smaller churches and chapels.32 Such a figure would render a need for two hundred to three hundred years’ worth of production at the rate at which Tours worked. It is clearly impossible for any single location to have produced that many copies in a short period of time, unless it employed hundreds of scribes for years on end. Alternatively, the work would have taken until the eleventh or twelfth centuries. (This latter point is important to consider, as the manu­script record suggests those centuries are precisely when witnesses to Paul’s homiliary became incredibly numerous through the uncoordinated efforts of many different scriptoria. Production momentum was achieved.)33 These estimations lead me to suggest that, at best, the homiliary was sent only to a select number of cathedrals and principal monasteries, if it was sent at all during Charlemagne’s lifetime.

 32 See R. McKitterick’s map in Reynolds, ‘The Organisation, Law and Liturgy of the Western Church’, pp. 592–96. See also Ewig, ‘Descriptio Franciae’; Prinz, ‘Schenkungen und Privilegien Karls des Großen’, p. 488; McKitterick, The Frankish Kingdoms under the Carolingians, p. 377.  33 Such widespread use of the homiliary was hardly inevitable. See McKitterick, ‘Carolingian Bible Production’, p. 65, for a similar point regarding the use of Alcuin’s biblical text in many Paris Bibles of the twelfth century.

135

1 36

c ha p te r 4

A further consideration regarding ‘mass production’ follows. Where we are aware of centres for the ‘mass production’ of certain kinds of texts, like Tours for pandect Bibles, St Amand for sacramentaries, or the Loire Valley for classical texts,34 these processes of production have left some mark on the extant manu­script record, with multiple copies that are palaeo­graphically and artistically alike. No such mark is visible in witnesses to Paul’s collection. No copy appears as a product of Charlemagne’s court, and relatively few witnesses are palaeo­graphically similar to one another. The witnesses that are similar are from after the reign of Charlemagne: five manu­scripts produced at Tours across the ninth and tenth centuries; and various sets made at St Gall and Reichenau in the ninth and tenth centuries. Most of these are different enough in their production styles to suggest considerable amounts of time between the production of each volume. The remaining witnesses have been localized to a great variety of centres across the Carolingian Empire, as I shall discuss shortly. After considering the difficulties of material investment and time, as well as the diversity of the palaeo­graphical evidence, a rather different process of dissemination springs to mind, rather than one of centralized, deliberate mass production, spurred on by an authoritative circular letter. I envisage a process of diffusion more along the lines of the spread of the Gregorian sacramentary, the Dionysio-Hadriana collection of canon law, and the Rule of Benedict, all of which were kept in authentic versions in the court library, among other similar works. Dissemination began slowly and only picked up speed with the increase in the availability of copies. David Ganz is one of the few to espouse the perspective on the homiliary that I incline towards, contrasting the exceptional, mass-produced Tours Bibles and St Amand sacramentaries with other sorts of texts: For other widely circulated texts in the Carolingian age, such as the homiliaries of Paul the Deacon, the Dionysio-Hadriana […] copies of the Lex Salica and of Ansegisus’ collection of Frankish capitularies, and computistical texts, copying depended on finding an exemplar.35 Representatives of some ecclesiastical centres probably came to the court to make copies of these works, some centres received copies as gifts from Charlemagne, Louis the Pious, or various kings and magnates, and others never received or obtained copies of these authentic texts, despite the promotion of them by Charlemagne and Louis. The provision of such copies was a mark of favour and a form of direction or intervention, while the pursuit of such copies would have reflected a loyalty to or interest in the court’s reform programme and its valorisation of certain, authoritative texts.

 34 For a survey of distinctive products and genres of particular scriptoria, see McKitterick, ‘Carolingian Book Production’.  35 Ganz, ‘Book Production in the Carolingian Empire’, pp. 800–801. McKitterick, ‘Carolingian Book Production’ also discusses networks between monasteries.

P er sacra domicilia C hrist i

An analogous process of dissemination for the homiliary would, on its own, explain the spread of evidence from extant manu­scripts and library catalogues that I shall discuss shortly, even assuming that what I have discovered represents a portion of what was produced in the period. When this evidence is taken together, the history of the homiliary’s diffusion involves fairly direct and specific forms of patronage, gift, and exchange, rather than a process of uniform imposition or centralized dissemination, as it has been viewed by some in the past.

4.5. Literary Evidence for Dissemination Contemporary evidence for the homiliary’s dissemination may be sorted into two main categories: (1) evidence from Carolingian library catalogues, chronicles, records of donation, poems, and other literature; and (2) evidence contained in the manu­script witnesses themselves, including their palaeo­ graphical features (broadly construed) and their transmission of texts included in Paul’s homiliary, that is, the prefatory materials, the rubrics introducing each liturgical entry, and the patristic texts themselves (which will be examined below). Many manu­script witnesses also transmit texts from other homily collections, which shed further light on the processes of dissemination. I shall deal with each of these bodies of evidence individually, noting first where the homiliary was used, before turning to the more complicated question of how it passed from place to place. The literary evidence comprises Carolingian library catalogues, histories of institutions, and records of donation. It varies in detail and in clarity, but provides us with a significant number of locations in which the homiliary was used. I shall deal with the material for each location individually. I already showed in the preceding chapter that the homiliary was commissioned and used in Charlemagne’s own chapels, perhaps especially at Aachen, so I shall not deal with that material again here. I assume as well that the homiliary was still used at Aachen for some time after Charlemagne’s death, given Einhard’s record of Charlemagne’s will, stating that the liturgical ‘vessels, books or equipment’ collected or given by him to the chapel of St Mary’s were not to be broken up.36 My discussion of BnF, MS lat. 16819.A (NE Francia, probably Compiègne, s. ix3/4) also suggested that Paul’s homiliary was still associated with Aachen’s liturgy by figures like Charles the Bald, well into the 870s. 4.5.1. St Wandrille and Benediktbeuern

Two records of donation are unambiguous and mention the homiliary quite explicitly. One is reported in the Chronicle of Benediktbeuern during the abbacy of Eliland, third abbot of the Bavarian monastery (c. 764–808). It is worth  36 Einhard, Vita Karoli 5, trans. by Thorpe, pp. 49–90, at 89.

137

13 8

c ha p te r 4

reproducing in full: ‘Libri quos ad altare sancti Benedicti dedit sunt duae omeliae, una de aduentu Domini usque in Pascha, et altera in aduentum Domini de Pascha, in quibus iussit scribi sermones diuersorum patrum, diaconoque suo praecepit emendare eas’ (The books which [Charlemagne] gave to the altar of St Benedict were two collections of homilies — one from the Lord’s Advent until Easter, and the other from Easter until the Lord’s Advent — in which he ordered the sermons of diverse Fathers to be written, and he commanded his deacon to emend them).37 This donation is noteworthy because Benediktbeuern is the only ecclesiastical centre to claim that it received a homiliary directly from Charlemagne. The statement that it was emended by ‘his deacon’ makes the connection to Paul quite sure. For St Wandrille, the Gesta sanctorum patrum Fontanellensis records significant deeds of the abbots of the monastery. When it comes to mention Ansegis, the famous courtier of Charlemagne and Louis the Pious who later became lay abbot of St Wandrille (823–33), it states that he gave the monastery many gifts, including ‘collectaneos duos super anni circulo Pauli diaconi volumina II’ (two volumes: the two collections of Paul the Deacon upon the circle of the year), that is, the homiliary.38 The monastery had previously possessed a one-volume collection: ‘Omeliare diversorum auctorum volumen unum’ (A one-volume homiliary of diverse authors).39 4.5.2. St Riquier

Other records are not as obvious as those for St Wandrille and Benediktbeuern, but St Riquier’s is relatively clear. It mentions a homily collection in the monastery’s possession whose authors only occur together in Paul’s collection: ‘homiliarius sanctorum patrum anni circuli, Hieronymi, Augustini, Gregorii, Origenis, Leonis, Ioannnis, Fulgentii, Bedae in I vol’ (a homiliary of the Holy Fathers for the circle of the year: Jerome, Augustine, Gregory, Origen, Leo, John, Fulgentius, and Bede in one volume).40 Since it was only one volume, it may have omitted some texts or occasions. Another entry in the catalogue is compelling as well, albeit not conclusive: ‘item homilia SS. patrum super anni circulum in III. volum’ (In three volumes, homilies of the Holy Fathers covering the circle of the year).41 It could be an independent collection or some kind of augmented copy of Paul’s work.

 37 Chronicon Benedictoburanum 7, ed. by Pertz, pp. 215–16.  38 Gesta sanctorum patrum Fontanellensis coenobii, ed. by Lohier and Laporte, p. 104.  39 Gesta sanctorum patrum Fontanellensis coenobii, ed. by Lohier and Laporte, p. 89. For a series of other relevant entries, see pp. 66–68, 88, 89–90, 103–04, 108–10.  40 Catalogi bibliothecarum antiqui, ed. by Becker, p. 27.  41 Catalogi bibliothecarum antiqui, ed. by Becker, p. 27.

P er sacra domicilia C hrist i

4.5.3. Lorsch

The library catalogues of Lorsch are notoriously complicated, being divided into multiple sections, all within the same manu­script: BAV, MS Pal. lat. 1877 (Lorsch, s. ix). However, across these sections, there is evidence for multiple homiliaries at Lorsch. For one of these homiliaries, gradual acquisition or production of a complete set for the whole year is apparent. The earliest entry occurs on folio 77v in catalogue ‘A’, dated by Bernhard Bischoff to the first half of the ninth century: ‘Omel patru de aduentu dni usq. in septuagessima [sic]. in uno cod’ (Homilies of the Fathers from the Lord’s Advent until Septuagesima in one codex).42 Although the ‘B’ section of the catalogue is similarly dated by Bischoff to the first half of the ninth century, some time must have passed, perhaps as much as a decade; Lorsch had now acquired or produced three more codices in the same collection, now covering the whole year.43 This same collection is repeated in catalogue ‘C’, dating from the midninth century or later,44 with even greater specification of its contents: the homiliary’s volumes cover Sundays and feast days. Moreover, by this time, Lorsch had also acquired another ‘collectarii. iii.’ (three collections) and a third set: ‘omelia scorum patru in tribus codicibus diuisae’ (homilies of the fathers divided into three codices) (fol. 1r–v). In other words, Lorsch gradually acquired a full homiliary set across the first half of the ninth century and then acquired two more afterwards, such that they possessed three homiliary sets in ten separate codices by the end of the ninth century. Moreover, Lorsch also had ‘Liber expositionum lectionum euangelii & ceterarum lectionum per totum annum’ (a book of explanations of the Gospel readings and of other readings through the whole year) (fol. 2v). Some might object that there is no certainty that any of these entries correspond to a copy of Paul’s homiliary. ‘Collectary’, for instance, is a term that liturgical historians use to denote a collection of prayers,45 and all three entries are quite vague. However, we must remember that the termino­logy for book genres was not settled in the ninth century. ‘Homiliary’ (homiliarius), for instance, is only used on a few occasions in the Carolingian period, as in the donation record of St Wandrille noted above. It would be some time before it was used everywhere. On the other hand, ‘collectary’ is used for collections of homilies on at least six other occasions in the period, in a letter  42 For the dating and an analysis of the manu­script, see Bischoff, Lorsch im Spiegel seiner Hand­ schriften, esp. pp. 8–18; and Katalog, iii, 421. Cf. also Häse, Mittel­alterliche Bücher­verzeichnisse aus Kloster Lorsch.  43 Fol. 44r: ‘Omelia siue sermones scoru patrum ab aduentu usque in lxx in uno uol. A lxx usq. in pascha in alio codice. A pascha usq. in festiuitate sci petri in tertio cod. A festiuitate sci p&ri usq. in aduentu dni in quarto cod.’  44 Bischoff gives a date of s. ix ‘nach der Mitte’, but it is likely before 860, when the books of Gerward were added.  45 See the sources in Gy, ‘Collectaire, rituel, processionnal’, pp. 455–56, quoted in Vogel, Medi­ eval Liturgy, pp. 261–62, along with others listed by Vogel.

1 39

140

c ha p te r 4

sent by the Emperor Lothar requesting a collection of homilies from Rabanus Maurus,46 as well as in the library catalogues of St Gall, Reichenau, Bobbio, Passau, and Monte Cassino. Moreover, Lorsch’s catalogue is organized by genre; this entry occurs in the section of Lorsch’s catalogue dedicated to liturgical books and, specifically, patristic antho­logies. ‘Three collectaries’ refers to patristic compilations here, not to collections of prayers. They could quite easily correspond to a copy of Paul’s homiliary or something similar. The entry mentioning a homily collection divided into four parts is admittedly vague. But it is actually similar to entries in the library catalogues of centres that clearly possessed Paul’s homiliary (Reichenau, St Gall, discussed below). There was arguably a common language between these centres that argues in favour of seeing this division into four small volumes as a reference to a copy of Paul’s work or a collection inspired by it.47 My main argument, however, takes the three entries together and sees them as almost certain evidence that at least one of these entries refers to a copy of Paul’s collection. This point is strengthened also since there is corroborating manu­script evidence that Lorsch possessed adapted versions of the homiliary of Paul the Deacon by the eleventh century — BAV, MSS Pal. lat. 428 and 429; and fragments in Tulln, Stadtarchiv, Cod. 18 — similar to the adapted copies made by other centres that had also owned the homiliary for some time. Finally, it also seems possible that Charlemagne would have sent Lorsch a homiliary, for it was under his protection and patronage. Lorsch is firmly on the list. 4.5.4. St Gall

Two library catalogues survive from Carolingian St Gall, now contained in CSG 728 (s. ixmed) and CSG 267 (s. ix3/4 and ix4/4). Moreover, the entries concerning homiliaries were written progressively in CSG 728 and further described in chrono­logical detail in CSG 267. Because of the wonderful preservation of St Gall manu­scripts, many extant homiliaries may be linked with specific catalogue entries. Palaeo­graphical analysis can also show the progression of work in these homiliaries.48 Both catalogues reference one homiliary set in identical terms: ‘Collectarii magni IIII homiliarum seu sermonem [sic] sanctorum patrum per singulas festiuitates in anno’ (Four great collections of homilies or sermons of the Holy Fathers for each feast in the year).49 This reference appears to refer to a complete set, rather like that at Lorsch. I believe the collection is extant now as (1) CSG 432 (St Gall, s. ix2/4), the summer portion of Paul the Deacon’s  46 See Rabanus Maurus, Epistola 49, ed. by Dümmler, p. 503: ‘in priscorum modernorumque patrum collectariis’. Cf. Epistola 23 (p. 429) and 24 (p. 430).  47 Cf. McKitterick, The Carolingians and the Written Word, p. 191.  48 My discussion here has been greatly sharpened by discussion with Susan Rankin, whose work on the dating of these homiliaries and their relation to Notker the Stammerer is discussed in further detail in ‘Notker bibliothecarius’.  49 CSG 728, p. 12; CSG 267, p. 13.

P er sacra domicilia C hrist i

homiliary, a manu­script that was originally divided from Easter to Sts Peter & Paul, then for Sts Peter & Paul to Advent, but is now joined in a single codex; and (2) Basel, Öffentliche Bibliothek der Universität, MS B.III.2 (St Gall, s. ix2/4), an incomplete winter portion, Advent–Lent, executed at an earlier stage. In other words, from this collection, we are missing one volume. The original divisions, however, correspond generally to those of Lorsch. The catalogues also mention a second four-volume homiliary set, but in slightly different ways. The first catalogue bears signs of being written progressively in more than one hand: First appears, ‘Duo uolumina noua sermonem et homiliarum. ab aduentu domini usque in pascha’ (Two new volumes of sermons and homilies, from the Advent of the Lord until Pascha). Another entry was written in later: ‘Tertium a pascha usque in octauam pentecostes’ (A third [volume] from Pascha until the Octave of Pentecost). Finally: ‘Quartum usque de aduentu domini’ (A fourth until the Advent of the Lord).50 The second catalogue corroborates this sequence. Although it mentions in its first section all four of these ‘new volumes’ together, without any difference in hand between the entries, later sections detail more precisely when they were produced. CSG 267 records that ‘Collectarios duos in singulis uoluminibus de aduentu’ (Two collections in single volumes from Advent) were produced in the latter years of Grimald’s abbacy, when Louis the German was king and Hartmut was praepositus (i.e. 850x872).51 Meanwhile, ‘Collectaria duo de pascha usque ad aduentum domini’ (Two collections from Pascha until the Advent of the Lord) were produced in Hartmut’s abbacy, at the time of Louis the German and then his son Charles the Fat (872–83).52 We have some fairly precise dates to work with for these putative volumes. These latter catalogue descriptions, moreover, can also be linked quite precisely with three extant manu­scripts derived from Paul’s collection. Anton von Euw prematurely combined both the first set and the second set of catalogue descriptions — the ‘collectarii magni’ and the ‘uolumina noua’ — and applied both descriptions to CSG 430, 431, 433, and 434. In his art-historical analysis, he dated all of them to ‘s. ix3/4’.53 Greater precision is possible. The ‘collectarii magni’ refer to CSG 432 and Basel, Öffentliche Bibliothek der Universität, MS B.III.2, although we are missing one manu­ script from that group. CSG 430 and 431 can be tied to the first-stage efforts of the ‘uolumina noua’: the first two volumes produced during Grimald’s abbacy and Hartmut’s priory (850–72). They cover Advent to Easter. CSG 434 is the fourth volume described in this part of the catalogues, covering the post-Pentecost season, and produced during Hartmut’s abbacy (872–83).  50  51  52  53

CSG 728, p. 18. See CSG 267, p. 26. See CSG 267, p. 29. See von Euw, Die St Galler Buchkunst vom 8. bis zum Ende des 11. Jahrhunderts, nos 75, 76, 78, and 79 at i, 372–73, 373, 375–78, and 378, respectively.

141

142

c ha p te r 4

The third volume, Easter to Pentecost, is now missing. These are all, moreover, revised and lightly amplified copies of Paul’s homiliary. The volumes match these differing dates also; they are clearly from the same scriptorium, but the St Gall style was in development from the 850s to the 880s. With regard to the ‘uolumina noua’, CSG 433 ought to be excluded, interesting as it is. It is a later collection of material for saints’ days, in no way corresponding to the library catalogue’s description. Other entries in the catalogue do not correspond to collections based on Paul’s work. Most of them specify their authors.54 A vague attribution relates to the comes, the epistle lections: ‘Expositum super lectiones comitis pleniter per totum anni circulum legendum. Item in lectiones homelie. per singulas festiuitates a natele [sic] domini usque in ascensione domini. vol. .I. Item ab ascensione domini usque in uigiliam natale domini vol. I.’ (Exposition of the lections of the comes to be read throughout the whole circle of the year: homilies on the lections for each feast from the birth of the Lord until the Ascension of the Lord, one volume; from the ascension of the Lord until the vigil for the birth of the Lord, another volume’. Among these comes homiliaries, the second volume seems to me to be CSG 422 (St Gall, s. ix1/2), which stretches from the Sunday after Ascension until the Sunday before Christmas, along with a commune sanctorum. The first volume mentioned here is either lost or not yet identified, but it would have matched the contents of a volume now known in Co­logne, Dombibliothek, MS 172 (probably Mondsee, s. ix1/4),55 whose format and scope complement CSG 422 precisely. It is a collection stretching from Christmas to Ascension. This two-volume homiliary has never been studied; its contents are largely unknown and deserve further investigation. To sum up, St Gall’s catalogues provide evidence that corresponds to its manu­script witnesses. It not only produced copies of Paul’s homiliary in the second quarter of the ninth century but also acquired many other homily collections. The period from 850 to 883 saw the revision of these Paul the Deacon codices. Later periods witnessed the production of many other collections derived from Paul’s text at St Gall, not mentioned in the catalogue but still extant, such as CSG 433 (883x912), Basel, Öffentliche Bibliothek der Universität, MS B.IV.26 (883x912), and Stuttgart, Würrtembergische Landesbibliothek, MS HB VII 57 (883x912).56

 54 E.g. CSG 267, pp. 20 and 728, p. 18, l. 13: ‘Sermones iohannis chrisostomi de diuersis rebus. In .I. vol.’ and ‘Omelias ioh crysostomi. & de compunctione cordis ac reperatione lapsi. In vol .I.’  55 Katalog, i, 403.  56 I discuss these collections in more detail in Chapter 6.

P er sacra domicilia C hrist i

4.5.5. Reichenau

The catalogue of Reichenau also mentions homiliaries. ‘The catalogue survives in a copy made in 1630 by Johann Egon from a now lost parchment roll’,57 and it was edited in Lehmann’s Mittel­alterliche Bibliothekskataloge.58 Luckily, it can be dated quite precisely to 823 due to its transmission of the header ‘Brevis librorum qui sunt in Coenobio Sindleozes Auua, facta anno VIII Hludovici imperatoris’ (Summary of the books which are the monastery of [Reichenau], completed in the eighth year of Emperor Louis). The collections we are concerned with come in the second ‘De libris homeliarum’ (Concerning books of homilies). The two entries are recorded as: ‘Homeliarum vel sermonum sanctorum colectarum ad legendum per singulas festivitates in anno volumina III. Item collectarum patr — — —, codices III’ (Collection of homilies or sermons of the saints for reading during each feast in the year, three volumes. Again, a collection of the Fathers … three codices).59 The first description is, once again, not unlike both Lorsch and St Gall. There are two possibilities: These entries may be identified with particular manu­scripts, hitherto dated to the second quarter of the ninth century, or they may be without analogue in extant manu­scripts. The potential witnesses are largely fragmentary: BLB, MS Aug perg 19 (s. ix2/4), stretching from St Lawrence to St Matthew, with a commune sanctorum; and BLB, MS Aug. perg. 29 (s. ix2/4), the winter portion, once stretching from Advent to Easter, but now only to the feast of the Circumcision, due to damage. A third volume for Easter to St Lawrence is missing. We do have another Reichenau manu­script, however, that covers Easter to St Matthew: Co­logny, Fondation Martin Bodmer, CB 128 (s. ix2/4). In other words, the extant manu­scripts and the library catalogue witness to Reichenau’s production of full and abbreviated copies of Paul’s homiliary. There are several other, relatively late manu­scripts from Reichenau (BLB, MSS Aug. perg. 16, 37, and 91) that are relevant to our study, but they are in no way related to the library catalogue, and I shall discuss them later. A final point to register before moving on concerns the descriptions in both the St Gall and Reichenau catalogues. Although these two centres clearly possessed copies of Paul’s collection, they did not refer to those manu­scripts as being ‘homiliaries of Paul the Deacon’ in their catalogues. This is true even though we know the Reichenau manu­script contained the prefatory material describing Paul and Charlemagne’s work. Both catalogues simply referred to their witnesses to Paul’s work as ‘books of homilies’ or ‘collections of homilies’. What this means is that we can never assume that a simple catalogue entry referring to a multi-volume homiliary does not or cannot refer to Paul’s work or a collection derived from it. The authors of our catalogues did not find it necessary to credit Paul.  57 McKitterick, The Carolingians and the Written Word, p. 179.  58 Mittel­alterliche Bibliothekskataloge Deutschlands, ed. by Lehmann and others, i, 240–52.  59 Mittel­alterliche Bibliothekskataloge Deutschlands, ed. by Lehmann and others, i, 250–51.

143

144

c ha p te r 4

4.5.6. Bobbio

The North Italian monastery of Bobbio possessed over fourteen homily collections, so many that it seems almost impossible they did not possess a copy of Paul’s work! I shall mention only the most interesting here: first, ‘libros IV in quo habentur homelia quorundam de singulis festivitatibus’ (Four books in which there are homilies concerning each feast); second, in an interesting section called ‘Breve de libris Theodori presbyteri’ (A brief account of the books of Theodore the priest), there is mention of ‘homeliarum Gregorii & Bedae liber I’ (one book of the homilies of Gregory and Bede).60 The first entry is intriguing because it points to a fairly extensive collection, requiring four volumes, like the collections at Lorsch, St Gall, and Reichenau. Meanwhile, the second entry is intriguing because a homiliary that contained only the homilies of Gregory and Bede would still cover a large part of the liturgical year.61 In other words, these two entries taken together, not to mention those that I have omitted for space, make it probable that Bobbio possessed at least one copy of Paul’s work. 4.5.7. Passau

Passau’s library catalogue contains two relevant entries: ‘Predicationes per anni curriculum. Collectarium ab initio. XL usque in pascha super Omnia cottidiana euuangelia’ (Sermons for the course of the year. A collection from the beginning of Lent until Easter covering all the daily Gospels).62 The situation here is similar to others. Neither of the entries needs to refer to Paul’s work, but one may. Both occur in a section of the catalogue related to homilies, so they are almost certainly the genre of book we are looking for. The greatest argument, though, that at least one of these entries refers to Paul’s collection or a work derived from it, is that nearly all Lent collections from the Carolingian period are based on Paul’s homiliary, particularly those commenting on the daily Gospels.63 This is perhaps, again, somewhat inconclusive, but not uncompelling. 4.5.8. Monte Cassino

The evidence at the Abbey of Monte Cassino is unclear. A short, clearly incomplete library catalogue survives from the Carolingian period, but it does mention three homily collections: (1) Bede’s homilies, (2) ‘Homilies from diverse teachers’, and (3) ‘A collectary from diverse teachers’.64 None  60 Catalogi bibliothecarum antiqui, ed. by Becker, p. 68, p. 72.  61 E.g. Stuttgart, Württembergische Landesbibliothek, MS HB VII 58 (Lake Constance, s. ximed). Cf. Autenrieth, Die Handschriften der ehemaligen Hofbibliothek Stuttgart. Vol. III: Codices iuridici et politici (HB VI 1–139). Patres (HB VII 1–71), pp. 206-08.  62 Catalogi bibliothecarum antiqui, ed. by Becker, p. 61.  63 Étaix, ‘Un homéliaire quadragésimal du ixe siècle’. See also the collection of St Gall: CSG 431 (850x872). I discuss both in Chapter 6.  64 Inguanez, Catalogi Codicum Casinensium Antiqui, p. 3. This catalogue is dated by Inguanez to the time of Theudemar.

P er sacra domicilia C hrist i

of these entries is what I hoped for. But my instinct that Monte Cassino possessed an early copy of Paul’s work may rest on the fact that this library catalogue is obviously incomplete, and it seems probable that Paul would have retained or had made some sort of copy for his own monastery. Many Paul the Deacon witnesses were produced at Monte Cassino from the late tenth to twelfth centuries. My time studying the extant witnesses suggests a rather complicated history of production from 990 to 1080, involving multiple exemplars used at different times to produce different manu­scripts, but I cannot explore the details here. 4.5.9. St Calixtus

Within the library catalogue of the abbey of St Calixtus, Cysoing, there is one entry to consider: ‘Homelia per annum’ (Homilies through the year).65 This is again an unclear piece of evidence, but it may be strengthened by another detail. St Calixtus was a monastery founded by Eberhard of Friuli, and in an article of considerable detail, Raymond Étaix demonstrated that BnF, MS lat. 9604 (Tours, s. ixmed) is a manu­script donated by Eberhard to the monastery of St Germain d’Auxerre.66 It seems unlikely that Eberhard would have lavished such gifts only upon another monastery and not upon his own foundation. Thus, I raise the possibility that he endowed St Calixtus with a copy of Paul’s homiliary and that this entry represents that gift. 4.5.10. Fulda

The evidence regarding a homiliary at Fulda is indirect, since no entry in its library catalogues mentions Paul’s homiliary.67 But several scholars studying the works of Rabanus Maurus suggest he is familiar with it, due to dozens of citations or allusions to its content in many works.68 4.5.11. Lyon

A lengthy set of verses (197 lines) attributed to Florus of Lyon with the title Epigramma libri omeliarum totius anni ex diversorum patrum tractatibus ordinati witnesses to a collection held there.69 The bulk of the poem is spent discussing each feast of the liturgical year and praising the manner in which Lyon’s  65 Catalogi bibliothecarum antiqui, ed. by Becker, p. 60, and p. 61: ‘de diversis sententiis et praecipuis festivitatibus legendis librum I’.  66 Étaix, ‘L’Homéliaire d’Ebrardus retrouvé?’, p. 329.  67 Catalogi bibliothecarum antiqui, ed. by Becker, pp. 31–32, 266–69. See also Christ, Die Bibliothek des Klosters Fulda im 16. Jahrhundert.  68 Over seventy entries refer to Paul the Deacon (PauD) in Hrabani Mauri Opera exegetica, iii: Apparatus fontium, ed. by Cantelli Berarducci. See also Étaix, ‘Le Recueil de sermons compose par Raban Maur pour Haistulfe de Mayence’, pp. 134–35; Woods, ‘Inmaculata, Incorrupta, Intacta’, pp. 230–32; and Guiliano, ‘Holy Gluttons’, pp. 289–90.  69 Florus of Lyon, Carmina 5, ed. by Dümmler, pp. 530–35. Also in PL, 119:274C–278A. Cf. HLM, p. 74.

145

146

c ha p te r 4

homiliary opens the mysteries of the Christian faith. It might be possible, after lengthy analysis, to link some of the individual strophes to particular patristic homilies, but I have not had the time to do so. The verses contain other clues as well. It states that it was ‘ex veterum dictis collectus denique patrum’ (collected from the sayings of the ancient fathers). In other words, we are not dealing with a single-author collection. Moreover, the relatively limited sanctoral cycle of the collection praised by Florus is similar to that of Paul’s liturgical year, differing from it only by including the Maccabees and omitting Sts Agnes, Cyprian, and Matthew. This may be an incomplete description, as poetic verses regarding books tend to be selective, but I am convinced that Lyon may have had a collection that was at least derived from Paul’s work. 4.5.12. Weißenburg

In the late nineteenth century, Georg Loeck conducted a study of Otfrid of Weißenburg’s Evangelienbuch, in which he argued that the monk’s interpretation of Gospel passages was indebted to the texts in Paul’s homiliary.70 Some of the references he uncovered are from Haymo and Heiric of Auxerre, among others, whom Loeck thought were included in Paul’s homiliary; he had used the edition of the homiliary in J. P. Migne’s PL, 95. Nevertheless, the genuine attributions to Paul’s text are considerable enough to conclude that Otfrid was familiar with it, and so I include Weißenburg here. 4.5.13. Many Inconclusive References, but Fourteen Probable

There are other interesting, but questionable references that cannot be strengthened by other corroborating evidence. Not every description of a collection of patristic homilies or sermons need refer to Paul’s collection. Such general descriptions would include an entry in the library catalogue of Staffelsee, those in a few Bavarian church inventories, and a few references in the will of Eberhard of Friuli.71 Another ambiguous entry occurs in the Vita of Benedict of Aniane.72 No homiliary manu­script can be connected

 70 Loeck, Die Homiliensammlung des Paulus Diakonus.  71 Staffelsee: Catalogi bibliothecarum antiqui, ed. by Becker, p. 4: ‘Liber omeliarum diversorum auctorum I; liber beati Gregorii quadraginta omeliarum I’. Bavaria: Hammer, ‘Country Churches, Clerical Inventories and the Carolingian Renaissance in Bavaria’. Eberhard: Catalogi bibliothecarum antiqui, ed. by Becker, p. 29 (a book of sermons given to Unroch), p. 34 (a ‘collectaneum’ given to Rodolphus). There is also a collection of sermons given to Judith (p. 30). It is interesting how Eberhard leaves liturgical items or collections of sermons to most of his heirs.  72 ‘Alium nichilominus ex sanctorum doctorum homeliis, quae in exortatione monachorum sunt prolatae, coniunxit librum eumque omni tempore in vespertinis collectis legere iussit’. Ardo Smaragdus, Vita Benedicti abbatis Anianensis et Indensis, ed. by Waitz, p. 217. An English translation may be found in Benedict of Aniane: The Emperor’s Monk. Ardo’s Life, trans. by Cabaniss.

P er sac ra domic ilia C hrist i

with Benedict, however; those previously proposed as his compilation have turned out to be abbreviated witnesses to Paul.73 Still, a significant number of references remain, which can be traced to specific locations, as Table 10 illustrates. What is surprising about this list is that there are almost no cathedrals included, perhaps the result of surviving evidence. Fewer surviving Carolingian catalogues are extant from cathedrals, as compared to monasteries, and records of donation have not survived as well either. A brief comment on the regions included in this list is in order as well. Although not every part of the Frankish Empire is included here, the references are sufficiently broad to suggest a fairly wide dissemination of the homiliary in the Frankish kingdoms, even before we come to manu­script evidence. No location from Aquitaine, Burgundy, or Provence is on the list, but we face a problem of survival there as well. Table 10. Literary references to PD locations

Court chapels

Cathedrals

Monasteries

St Mary’s, Aachen                      

Lyon                      

St Riquier St Calixtus St Wandrille Lorsch Passau Fulda St Gall Reichenau Benediktbeuern Weißenburg Bobbio Monte Cassino?

4.6. Manu­script Evidence (A): Twenty-Two Clear Palaeographical Identifications, Twelve Unclear The manu­script base for this book is over eighty different witnesses, some fragmentary and some well-preserved. A complete survey and description of the scripts deployed in the manu­scripts would be illuminating, but also lengthy and tedious, since few of the witnesses are palaeo­graphically similar. Due to the large number of manu­scripts, I made a methodo­logical

 73 See Albers, ‘Eine Homiliensammlung Benedikts von Aniane?’; Étaix, ‘Un florilège ascétique attribué indûment à Saint Benoît d’Aniane’; and Étaix, ‘Les Homélies capitulaires du codex Guta-Sintram’.

147

1 48

c ha p te r 4

Table 11. Palaeo­graphical identifications of PD witnesses

Regions

Court chapels

Cathedrals

Monasteries

NW Italy N Italy Italy (Rome?) SW Germany W Germany Germany N Francia NE Francia E Francia Francia Burgundy Aquitaine/Provence

Court of Louis the German?

Cambrai Chartres Freising Konstanz Laon Mainz Metz Regensburg Reims

Arras Benediktbeuern Compiègne Luxeuil Reichenau St Amand St Bertin St Emmeram St Gall St Germain d’Auxerre St Martial St Serge Tours (later, canons)

choice from the beginning of my research on this topic to begin with the palaeo­graphical judgements of others as an initial base. I then consulted all of the manu­scripts either in person, online, or by purchasing photos. My consultations allowed me to make exhaustive inventories of manu­script contents and collect palaeo­graphical notes and photos. The biblio­graphical information has never been gathered together into one place, nor have most of the manu­scripts ever been exhaustively inventoried. It proved enough of a task to gather the references, consult the manu­scripts, make inventories, and gather some preliminary palaeo­graphical notes. It was simply impossible to examine all the relevant manu­scripts in sufficient detail to challenge or clarify every date and localization, though I have done so in a few cases. The information I present, then, is largely dependent on the work of others, and I lack the space to argue for each identification, even in my appendices. I hope to explore those issues in further detail in future publications. The way in which I gathered my list of manu­scripts and palaeo­graphical identifications was mentioned in the Introduction, along with my sources. The information is presented in Table 11. There is a considerable concentration of manu­script witnesses in the ecclesiastical centres of Francia, north of the Loire, whether attributed to a specific location or not. Only two may be traced to Provence or Aquitaine, and two to the area of Burgundy (when counting Luxeuil). A number are present throughout Germany, especially around certain centres in Bavaria. Finally, Tours, St Gall, and Reichenau are outstanding for the number of extant witnesses that they produced. Among all of these witnesses, however, Italy is not especially well represented, with only four extant manu­scripts, two of which represent significantly altered versions of the homiliary: BAV,

P er sacra domicilia C hrist i

149

Table 12. Combined references to PD locations

Regions

Court chapels

Cathedrals

Monasteries

NW Italy N Italy Italy (Rome?) SW Germany W Germany Germany N Francia NE Francia E Francia Francia Burgundy Aquitaine/Provence

Court of Louis the German? St Mary’s, Aachen

Cambrai Chartres Freising Konstanz Laon Lyon Mainz Metz Regensburg Reims

Arras Benediktbeuern Bobbio Compiègne Fulda Lorsch Luxeuil Monte Cassino? Passau Reichenau St Amand St Bertin St Calixtus St Emmeram St Gall St Germain d’Auxerre St Martial St Riquier St Serge St Wandrille Tours (later, canons) Weißenburg

MS Vat. lat. 1278 (N Italy, s. ixex) and BAV, MS Ottob. lat. 106 (St Cecilia’s, Rome, s. x or xi). What is most surprising is that no extant ‘Beneventan’ or south Italian copies from the period have been identified, a strange fact, given Paul’s association with Monte Cassino. This palaeo­graphical diversity differs from other texts with a comparable spread of dissemination, such as Tours Bibles. Apart from Tours, St Gall, and Reichenau, we do not have evidence for any centre producing multiple copies of Paul’s text. Additionally, the balance of cathedrals to monasteries has changed, though monasteries are still in the majority. As I noted above, cathedrals have historically been less successful in preserving their collections, so there may be more cathedral copies that are no longer extant or perhaps among those copies can only be localized to regions, rather than centres. Many cathedrals also had close relationships with monasteries so these divisions are not so clear-cut. Still, I can dismiss here the frequent claim that the homiliary was used only by monks. Table 12 and Map 1 combine data from manu­scripts and literature.

1 50

c ha p te r 4

Map 1. Locations of PD production or use (map by Erik Goosman, Mappa Mundi Carto­graphy)

When all of the data is in, a few points about the general dissemination of the homiliary are clear. By the tenth century, many of the major ecclesiastical centres of the Frankish Empire possessed copies of the homiliary of Paul the Deacon or new collections derived from it. Some important names are missing from the list: St Denis, Murbach, Trier, Troyes, or at least one more of the great cities of northern Italy, such as Pavia or Verona. Similarly, certain areas on the outer reaches of the Carolingian Empire are missing, such as Bremen or Corvey. The concentration of copies in northern Francia is considerable, but I discovered no copies that could be localized indisputably to the area of Paris. At the same time, the geo­graphical spread of the extant witnesses and of other contemporary evidence is impressive and generally fits with the density of ecclesiastical centres in each area. No area remained unreached, even if Aquitaine, Provence, Italy, and the outer reaches of Germany do not have the same dense clusters of witnesses as in northern Francia. No copy of Paul’s homiliary can be traced to a clear location apart from the major ecclesiastical centres, however, beyond copies that are only

P er sacra domicilia C hrist i

localized to a region. The homiliary may not have been well known outside of elite, well-endowed institutions. Every location is an ecclesiastical centre of considerable wealth, resources, connections, and privileges, not unlike the general list of churches that were recipients of Charlemagne’s patronage, as documented by Friedrich Prinz; it overlaps too with the location of many cathedral schools and other places of learning, as noted by Julia Barrow.74 I note also, however, that I have been unable to find a witness originating from the scriptoria of a female religious community, but this is as much a problem of the evidence: in the absence of a clear colophon or scribal note, there are few ways to distinguish the productions of male and female houses.75 What remains unclear after surveying both the literary and palaeo­graphical evidence is the means by which the homiliary was disseminated. I noted three or four instances of direct patronage above: Charlemagne provided a gift to Benediktbeuern, a copy for St Riquier, and Eberhard of Friuli a copy for St Germain d’Auxerre and, quite possibly, for St Calixtus as well. This is meagre, though. The reference to Benediktbeuern, after all, helps us little. The extant fragments — BSB, Clm 29471 (1) + Hamburg, Museum für Kunst und Gewerbe, no shelfmark — may stem from the original gift of Charlemagne, but they also have been dated to the second quarter of the ninth century, after Charlemagne’s death.76 The reference from St Wandrille is from 825x835. The remainder of our literary references and palaeo­graphical identifications are also generally the second quarter of the ninth century or later, with only a few fragments dated to the beginning of the ninth century and none to the end of the eighth. Most of these references and homiliaries appear unconnected to each other, at first glance. We thus need to look elsewhere for further evidence regarding the dissemination of the homiliary.

4.7. Manu­script Evidence (B): Transmission of Textual Variants Implies Further Copies The classic means for discussing textual dissemination involves collating readings from various witnesses, noting their variants, discerning textual relationships, and constructing stemmata. The nature of this study does not allow for the fullest version of such a task to be completed. The homiliary contains too many texts, and the witnesses are too numerous. However, I have made a beginning by studying a facet of the collection’s transmission: its rubrics.  74 Prinz, ‘Schenkungen und Privilegien Karls des Großen’, p. 488; Julia Barrow’s list in The Clergy in the Medi­eval World, p. 186.  75 See McKitterick, ‘Frauen und Schriftlichkeit im Frühmittel­alter’, pp. 65–67, repr. as ‘Women and Literacy in the Early Middle Ages’, pp. 1–3. See also Bischoff, ‘Die Kölner Nonnenhandschriften und das Skriptorium von Chelles’; McKitterick, ‘The Diffusion of Insular Culture in Neustria between 650 and 850’.  76 Katalog, ii, 291; Schreibsch., i, 37, and ii, 199.

15 1

1 52

c ha p te r 4

In earlier chapters, I noted that Paul’s homiliary contains rubrics for every liturgical occasion and text contained within it. These rubrics were not recorded uniformly, however. The witnesses exhibit significant variation, especially around particular feasts and authors. I had hoped to include a partial edition of the most important rubrics, for they reveal a series of interesting textual relationships. But work in progress has both vindicated my conclusions here and made the publication of them undesirable, until I can publish a fuller reconstruction and partial edition of the homiliary’s form and rubrics to replace Grégoire’s entry in HLM. Instead, I shall discuss some of the clearest conclusions I have drawn from the rubrics. I begin with examples from the summer portion of the homiliary, for that is the place where the variation is clearest, especially around entries from the commentaries of the Venerable Bede. But I should provide first a sense of the general pattern of rubrication in the homiliary, so that the significance of the textual variation I present is clear. Normally, an entry is marked in Paul’s homiliary in the following way, somewhat different from the entries in the table of contents, discussed in the previous chapter. Usually the liturgical occasion is given. After this will follow a sermon, a Gospel lection with a homily, or both. The whole together might run as follows from PD I:91. Dominica III in Quadragesima Sermo beati Iohannis episcopi de Moyse Stabat Moyses in monte non armis […] ut possit recipere quod amisit. Lectio sancti euangelii secundum Iohannem In illo tempore, abiit Iesus trans mare Galileae […] et reliqua. Omelia venerabilis Bedae presbyteri de eadem lectione Qui signa et miracula Domini ac saluatoris nostri recte cum legunt uel audiunt […] introducens aeternam in qua uiuit cum Patre et Spiritu Sancto. I have standardized the entry to a degree. The sections that I have marked in bold — the rubrics — were usually written in red ink, using Roman Rustic capitals or Uncial (the latter is somewhat more common in the first half of the ninth century). The sections in italics were written in Caroline minuscule, with punctuation and litterae notabiliores denoting the divisions of the text. I have only provided sample incipits and explicits for the texts, and the ellipses represent many folios of text. Moreover, this is a ‘clean’ version of the homiliary’s rubrics. They were usually more or less abbreviated, often like the following: Dom. III in Quad. Sermo be. Ioh. epi. de Moyse Stabat Moyses in monte non armis […] ut possit recipere quod amisit. Lec. sci. eug. sec. Iohan. In illo tempore, abiit Iesus trans mare Galileae […] et reliqua. Omel. venerabil. Bed. prbi. de. eade. lec. Qui signa et miracula Domini ac saluatoris nostri recte cum legunt uel audiunt […] introducens aeternam in qua uiuit cum Patre et Spiritu Sancto.

P er sacra domicilia C hrist i

Among these abbreviated versions, the method of abbreviation and the deployment of punctuation and ortho­graphy are often inconsistent within a single manu­script or a set of manu­scripts from the same centre, at least in the rubrics. ‘Bede’ might be rendered as ‘Bedae’, ‘Bed’, ‘Baedae’, or even ‘Beve’. ‘Presbiteri’ could be given in full or as ‘pri’, ‘prespiter’, ‘prbi’, ‘pbri’, or something else. Abbreviated words might be indicated by a punctus, a punctus medius, or a curved or straight line over the word, or they may not be indicated at all. Witnesses from the tenth century or later often exhibit an even more condensed version. Lectio sancti euangelii secundum Iohannem begins to be represented by L. S. E. S. Iohan; Omelia lectionis eiusdem sancti Gregorii papae becomes O. L. E. S. Gregor pp.77 There was a cavalier attitude towards copying these introductory formulae, which were spoken aloud in the liturgy, perhaps because they were partially memorized. However, while the g­ raphic representation of certain common phrases was inconsistent, the phrases themselves remain consistent enough to notice specific changes from manu­script to manu­script and centre to centre.

4.8. Key Textual Variants in the Summer Volume Nineteen rubrics, along with other evidence, provide the basis for the following reconstruction of relationships. Two distinct families of the homiliary had developed by the second quarter of the ninth century, with considerably different rubrics on certain occasions. These may best be seen in a series of entries describing excerpts from the commentaries of the Venerable Bede. One family of texts provides what might be considered the ‘typical’ formula, like the following for PD II:79 (GPD II:81). Dominica V post sancti Laurentii Lectio sancti euangelii secundum Lucam Et factum est cum intraret […] et cetera Sermo uenerabilis Bedae presbiteri de eadem lectione Hydropis morbus ab aquoso […] The other family provides a descriptive rubric in the third line, which describes the patristic lection. Dominica V post sancti Laurentii Lectio sancti euangelii secundum Lucam De hydropico exposita a uenerabili uiro beda praesbitero Hydropis morbus ab aquoso […]

 77 E.g., as in CSG 423 (St Gall, s. xex); or BAV, MS Ottob. lat. 106 (St Cecilia’s, Rome, s. x or xi).

15 3

154

c ha p te r 4

Initially, I believed that the ‘typical’ formula was the original one, rather than the one that said ‘Regarding the man with dropsy, explained by the venerable man, Bede the priest’. The typical appears in the manu­scripts used for the GPD reconstruction and is similar to other rubrics that occur throughout the homiliary. However, my analysis of all the manu­scripts revealed something quite different. The typical formula is applied with consistency in only three Carolingian manu­scripts from the area of Lake Constance and Bavaria. The first two are BLB, MS Aug. perg. 19 (Reichenau, s. ix2/4) and CSG 432 (St Gall, s. ix2/4). The two are incredibly similar in terms of script and decoration.78 The final manu­script in this family, BSB, Clm 4534 (SW Germany, s. ix3/4), appears to be a later witness in this family of texts; it bears the typical formula but in an abbreviated version: de eadem lectione disappears from many entries, for instance, a sign of derivation. Other changes point to BSB, Clm 4534’s dependence on the Reichenau/St Gall manu­scripts as well. The other family of texts applies the descriptive rubrics with total consistency. Four are from Tours: BnF, MSS NAL 2322 (s. ix2/4), lat. 12404 (s. ixmed), lat. 9604 (s. ixmed), and lat. 1897 (s. x). Another is our witness from Burgundy, mentioned earlier: Troyes, Médiathèque du Grand Troyes, MS 159 (s. ix or x). Two manu­scripts from Freising, originally joined together, transmit them as well: Bamberg, Staatsbibliothek, MS Patr. 155 (B.I.3) (s. ix2/4) and BSB, Clm 6264a (s. ix2/4). The final one is from North-east Francia: BnF, MS lat. 11699 (s. ix1/2). The only missing link at this point concerns an intermediate stage, with some of the descriptive rubrics still in place and others missing due to error or deliberate omission. Such manu­scripts exist. Co­logny, MS CB 128 (Reichenau, s. ix2/4) is the first. On most occasions, it provides ‘typical’ rubrics, as in the category of texts mentioned earlier, but on two occasions descriptive rubrics may be found. To strengthen this point, the other manu­script from Reichenau, BLB, MS Aug. perg. 19, provides such a rubric on one occasion as well. A progressive development is evident. The monastery of Reichenau probably made these changes to the summer volume of the homiliary of Paul the Deacon and was then followed by St Gall and then by our south-west German scriptorium. Our two textual families are clear, and Reichenau was the source of the changes. The witnesses differ in other ways, clarifying the relationships within these two general families, but I shall not review them here, for the sake of space. One of the primary results from this exercise, beyond establishing some of the complex relationships between our texts, is that I can show that some fairly odd rubrics are what Paul the Deacon included for certain entries. Moreover, the considerable differences in transmission are quite interesting, considering that these are all ninth-century witnesses. Texts diverged rather quickly.  78 These witnesses are discussed in greater detail in later chapters.

P er sacra domicilia C hrist i

A: BnF, MS NAL 2322 (Tours, s. ix2/4). B: BnF, MS lat. 12404 (Tours, s. ixmed). C: Troyes, MS 159 (Moutier-la-Celle (?), s. ix or x). D: Co­logny, Fondation Martin Bodmer, CB 128 (Reichenau, s. ix2/4). E: BnF, MS lat. 9604 (Tours, s ixmed). F: Laon, BM, MS 468.1 (Laon, s. ix4/4). G: BSB, Clm 4534 (SW Germany, s. ix3/4). H: BLB, MS Aug. perg. 19 (Reichenau, s. ix2/4). K: CSG 432 (St Gall, s. ix2/4). L: Bamberg, Staatsbibliothek, MS Patr. 155 (B.I.3) + BSB, Clm 6264a (Freising, s. ix2/4). M: BSB, Clm 29471 (1) + Hamburg, Museum für Kunst und Gewerbe, no shelfmark (Benediktbeuern, s. ix2/4).

N: BnF, MS lat. 11699 (NE Francia, s. ix1/2) O: BnF, MS lat. 1897 (Tours, s. x). Q: BLB, MS Aug. perg. 16 (Reichenau, s. x1/2). R: BLB, MS Aug. perg. 37 (Reichenau, s. x). S: CSG 434 (St Gall, 872x833). T: CSG 433 (St Gall, 883x912). U: BAV, MS Vat. lat. 8563 (S Germany, s. xi). Stemma 1. Summer witnesses (selection)

15 5

156

c ha p te r 4

My examination also revealed important differences between particular manu­scripts made around the same time or in the same centre, demonstrating which of them did or did not depend on other extant manu­scripts. For example, among the Tours witnesses I have mentioned, the two later ones differ significantly from the two earliest, in terms of their textual transmission. One of the later ones, BnF, MS lat. 9604, is sometimes in consonance with the Lake Constance/Bavarian family; the other (BnF, MS lat. 1897) is more like our witnesses from Burgundy and East Francia. Most often, though, their differences are unique. These reveal something about the production of these manu­scripts. Beyond being compiled at a later point, the late Tours witnesses were also compiled in a different fashion, either without the guidance of the earlier manu­scripts or with a deliberate disregard for them. Perhaps also the copyist(s) had other exemplars at hand that were not originally from Tours. Thus, in a single centre like Tours, the production of multiple homiliaries over the course of a century might rely on multiple methods and exemplars, either for the purposes of textual criticism or simply because earlier copies had been given away or were otherwise unavailable. Still, I want to emphasize the close relationship between many of the extant Carolingian witnesses, a point that is not surprising, given their temporal proximity. I have postulated two hyparchetypes, and five other lost manu­scripts, mostly at the earliest stages. The relationship between many of these manu­scripts is surprisingly clear. For clarity, in this stemma, ‘PD’ represents the homiliary held by Charlemagne or his successors in Aachen. I would add, too, that there are places where the derivation of one manu­script from another is clear, but there could be intervening stages of transmission that have not yet become evident. Stemma 1 is admittedly provisional as well, in anticipation of further text-critical work.

4.9. Key Textual Variants in the Winter Volume The witnesses to the winter volume of Paul’s homiliary do not possess as many distinctive, clear variants as the witnesses to the summer portion. Here, I only explore the most obvious and unique variants. The first variant is quite interesting and occurs at PD I:44 (GPD I:41). The normal reading is as follows: Dominica post natalem domini. Lectio sancti euangelii secundum Lucam. Erant pater Iesu & mater mirantes […] et reliqua. Omelia origenis de eadem lectione. An interesting thing about this entry is that Paul made significant changes to the text of Origen, and its final section is actually a selection from Bede’s commentary on Luke, as Grégoire noted in his reconstruction.79 This fact  79 HLM, p. 438.

P er sacra domicilia C hrist i

goes largely unnoted in most homiliary manu­scripts. But in three Carolingian manu­scripts it is explicitly mentioned: Saint-Omer, Bibliothèque d’Agglomération, MS 202 (NE Francia, probably St Bertin, s. x4/4); Angers, Médiathèque Toussaint, MS 235 (226) (W Francia, probably St Serge, s. x); and BnF, MS lat. 16819.A (NE Francia, probably Compiègne, s. ix3/4). It also appears in two later manu­scripts: Durham, Cathedral Library, MS B.II.2 (Durham, before 1096); and BnF, MS lat. 3791 (SE France, s. xi/xii). The variant reading is ‘Omelia Origenis quae catholice correcta est’ (A homily of Origen which has been corrected in a catholic manner). In other words, someone saw the changes to the homily or the addition of Bede’s text and felt they were worth noting. Unfortunately, it is impossible to identify where this change took place. Further, when other rubrics are taken into account, the three Carolingian witnesses that transmit this rubric are sufficiently different that none of them could have easily served as an exemplar for the others. One or more manu­scripts stand between these texts. It is striking, however, with regard to the Carolingian manu­scripts, that such a rubric was transmitted to three separate locations within a relatively short period of time: twenty-five years or less. A significant amount of distance separates Angers from Compiègne and St Bertin, and we are not aware of special links between these monasteries. This suggests that the initial change was made well before and copied into more texts than we now possess. A further fact is also relevant, however. The variant in Angers, MS 235, the earliest of the manu­scripts, is marked with an obelus (÷), the standard text-critical mark for noting a reading that is present in one of the witnesses used in textual collation but not in the others. We can see, then, that more than one homiliary manu­script was consulted when the monks of St Serge produced their copy of Paul the Deacon’s homiliary. Angers, MS 235 represents the confluence of more than one stream of transmission, and its texts are significant for any further study of the transmission of Paul’s collection in the Carolingian period. It is not clear where the monks of St Serge obtained their exemplars, though numerous ecclesiastical centres were fairly close, such as St Aubin, Marmoutier, or St Martin’s, Tours. It would not be surprising if St Serge used texts from one of these communities. What is clear, however, is that there were differences in the texts they used, probably from different locations. This obelus marking a variant rubric does demonstrate a peculiar concern with textual purity, however, a concern displayed throughout the manu­script. The compilers attempted to correct the rubrics of their manu­script quite closely. Angers, MS 235 transmits a considerable number of its own unique readings, but, unlike other witnesses, it also transmits many rubrics that bear a striking resemblance to various extant tables of content or capitula lectionum from Paul’s homiliary, such as we can see in BLB, MS Aug. perg. 29, BSB, Clm 4533, and Leiden, Bibliotheek der Rijksuniversiteit, MS Voss. lat. F.4.A. It was normal for there to be some differences between how tables of content described particular entries and how they were described in the rubrics. But it appears as if the compilers of Angers, MS 235 went through and attempted

15 7

158

c ha p te r 4

to create a closer correspondence. Given this fact and their use of multiple witnesses, it seems clear that the compilers of Angers, MS 235 chose to transmit a certain form of the rubrics. And, in one case, they thought the comment catholice correcta to be worth saving. This either points to a general desire for textual purity or a more complex wish to ensure that the correction of Origen be pointed out — and read aloud, I might add — in a liturgical manu­script. Another significant rubric appears at PD I:12 (GPD I:12) in Angers, MS 235, BnF, MS lat. 16819.A, and Basel, Öffentliche Bibliothek der Universität, MS B.III.2 (St Gall, s. ix2/4). It also appears in a later manu­script, BAV, MS Vat. lat. 8562 (S Germany, s. xi). The rubric sheds light on multiple textual issues. The normal rubric is: Feria VI ante natale domini. Lectio sancti euangelii secundum Lucam Exsurgens Maria abiit in montana […] et reliqua. Omelia uenerabilis Bedae prbi de eadem lectione Lectio quam audiuimus sancti euangelii et redemptionis […] dare uoluit unigenitum suum Iesuum Christum Dominum nostrum. Meanwhile, the variant reading states: Omelia lectionis eiusdem uenerabilis Bede presbiteri. Haec omelia conuenienter et in festiuitate beatae Mariae legi potest. The Gospel text and Bede’s Homelia concern the Annunciation, and the notice here matches up with a rubric that occurs in the summer portion as well, PD II:74 (GPD II:76b): In natiuitate sanctae Mariae. Rather than putting the homily in both places, most manu­scripts instead insert this rubric: Require omelia Bedae eiusdem lectionis in ebdomada ante natale domini These two rubrics refer to each other across volumes. What is most significant at the moment, however, is that this rare notice appears in a manu­script from St Gall (Basel, Öffentliche Bibliothek der Universität, MS B.III.2), but it does not appear in the winter witness from Reichenau (BLB, MS Aug. perg. 29). With the summer portion, the two monasteries appear to have collaborated in production; their copies of Paul’s homiliary are very similar, not only in terms of texts, but also in terms of script and decoration. The situation is completely different here. The rubrics vary between the manu­scripts from the two monasteries, and the script and decoration vary considerably as well. BLB, MS Aug. perg. 29 is incredibly beautiful and was surely costly to produce; it is covered in gold and elaborate decoration, as well as written on exceedingly fine parchment. Basel, MS B.III.2, on the other hand, is poorly written on plain parchment, generally undecorated, and riddled with obvious textual errors. Moreover, the winter witness from St Gall lacks a significant

P er sacra domicilia C hrist i

A1: BSB, Clm 17194 (Bavaria, s. ix1/2). A2: BSB, Clm 14380 (Regensburg, s. ix1/3). B1: BLB, MS Aug. perg. 29 (Reichenau, s. ix2/4). B2: BLB, MS Aug. perg. 16 (Reichenau, s. x1/2). B3: BLB, MS Aug perg. 37 (Reichenau, s. x). B4: BLB, MS Aug. perg. 91 (Reichenau, s. x). D1: Cambrai, Médiathèque d’agglomération de Cambrai, MS 365 (Cambrai Cathedral, s. ix1/2). D2: Cambrai, Médiathèque d’agglomération de Cambrai, MS 546 (Arras, s. ix3/3). E1: Basel, Öffentliche Bibliothek der Universität, MS B.III.2 (St Gall, s. ix2/4). E2: CSG 430 (St Gall, 850x872). E3: CSG 431 (St Gall, 850x872). E4: Basel, Öffentliche Bibliothek der Universität, MS B.IV.26 (St Gall, 883x912). E5: Stuttgart, MS HB VII 57 (St Gall, 883x912). G: Leiden, MS Voss. lat. F.4.A (NE Francia, s. ix4/4) I: Angers, Médiathèque Toussaint, MS 235 (226) (W Francia, probably St Serge, s. x). J1: Reims, Bibliothèque Carnegie, MS 296.2 (Reims, s. x1/2). J2: Fragment in Reims, Bibliothèque Carnegie, MS 116 (Reims, s. x). K: Bloomington, Indiana State Uni­ver­sity, Lilly Library, MS Poole 38 + Detroit, MI, Public Library, MS 1 + New Haven, CT, Yale Uni­ver­sity, Beinecke Rare Book and Manu­script Library, Marston MS 151 + Los Angeles, Uni­ver­sity of California, MS 2/IX/ITA (NW Italy, s. ix/x). L: BSB, Clm 4533 (SW Germany, s. ix3/4). M: Darmstadt, Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek, Hs. 523 (W Germany, s. x). N: BnF, MS lat. 16819.A (NE Francia, probably Compiègne, s. ix3/4). O: Saint-Omer, Bibliothèque d’Agglomération, MS 202 (NE Francia, s. x4/4). P: Durham, Cathedral Library, MS B.II.2 (Durham, before 1096). Stemma 2. Winter witnesses (selection)

1 59

1 60

c ha p te r 4

number of Paul’s texts, including all of the prefatory material, while the Reichenau manu­script is one of our most significant witnesses for the early section of the winter portion of Paul’s homiliary. The two manu­scripts have little in common. Further, their texts differ from BSB, Clm 4533, the south-west German manu­script which is paired with BSB, Clm 4534. As I noted above, the summer manu­scripts from Reichenau and St Gall and from this unidentified centre in south-west Germany were overwhelmingly similar in the summer volume, but the winter volumes from these centres transmit far fewer common rubrics. What this feature suggests is that the dissemination of Paul’s homiliary was divided; the summer portion and the winter portion circulated independently of each other. A centre such as St Gall or Reichenau might obtain or produce a copy of one portion of the homiliary, utilizing witnesses from one region and influencing those from another, and then obtain or produce the other portion at a different time. This is true even when the palaeo­graphical assessments label all the witnesses from a single centre as ‘s. ix2/4’. A quarter century is a long time in the life of an institution, the length of one or more episcopal or abbatial tenures. It is also a more practical time frame for considering the production of two fairly large manu­scripts, as we noted earlier. We might wonder whether it was in fact normal rather than exceptional for an ecclesiastical centre to acquire only one volume at a time; the example of Lorsch, noted above, is instructive. My hypothesis that the summer and winter portions of Paul’s text circulated independently is confirmed in other variant readings in the rubrics. Although the transmission amongst the witnesses is, at times, very close, some variants differ wildly. Therefore, in contrast to the summer portion of the homiliary, I have postulated a larger number of hyparchetypes, at least ten. Many more witnesses to the winter portion, made within the first half of the ninth century and in many areas of the Frankish Empire, were once extant. Stemma 2 is even more provisional and represents work in progress. Despite that fact, it also represents significantly more time spent, not only on the rubrics, but on the full patristic texts of the witnesses from Reichenau (‘B’ manu­scripts) and Sankt Gallen (‘E’ manu­scripts). In this stemma, I have postulated some lost manu­scripts or hyparchetypes that I realize textual critics might find it unnecessary to include. But I have tried to depict here, to some extent, the distance between manu­scripts, so as not to mislead the non-specialist. I have not included all of the extant winter witnesses at this time, which is why some letters are missing from the stemma. The relationships between the extant witnesses of the winter portion of Paul’s homiliary are less geo­graphically specific than those between witnesses to the summer portion. As I noted above, the south-west German witness, ‘L’ in this stemma, does not appear related to either the Reichenau winter witness or the St Gall one. The same is true of Reichenau and St Gall themselves. Moreover, certain witnesses from Cambrai and Arras are more like the witnesses from St Gall than any others. This connection

P er sacra domicilia C hrist i

is strengthened by comparing a late summer witness from Cambrai (Médiathèque d’agglomération de Cambrai, MS 530 (489), s. xi) to the summer witnesses from St Gall. It seems that a greater amount of exchange — between various regions and monasteries — marked the transmission of winter volumes. Why was this? One clear possibility would be that the winter portion was, in some sense, more popular than the summer. It is the portion that contained the verse of Paul the Deacon and the authorizing letter of Charlemagne. But another possibility is more likely. As I noted in Chapter 2, the liturgical calendar in the winter was much more settled than in the summer. Each ecclesiastical centre shared largely the same set of Gospel readings and, thus, could more easily receive a similar set of homilies commenting on them. The summer calendar was more variable, and there were more differences between Gospel lectionaries. One could not obtain a summer homiliary from another centre without expending considerable effort to adapt the homiliary to the liturgy of one’s own community. It would thus take longer to determine how to order the homiliary. The summer portion could not be disseminated as quickly. Alternatively, the winter season, with its longer nights and numerous Christo­logical and Marian feasts, needed patristic texts and longer ones, to suit longer services. Meanwhile, as I note in Chapter 6, some Benedictine monasteries that strictly observed the Rule may not have even used patristic homiliaries in the summer.

4.10. Paul’s Two Volumes often Circulated Separately My initial conclusion, then, is that the two portions were disseminated separately and at different speeds. The summer portion was marked more clearly by geo­graphic division and disseminated within particular locales, with some exceptions. Meanwhile, the winter portion was disseminated widely across the Frankish Empire, with frequent interchange. I have also uncovered some evidence of how particular copies were made, as well as the relative importance of particular centres. Tours played a significant role in the dissemination of the summer portion; it does not seem to have played the same role in the winter. Indeed, no winter volume from Carolingian Tours remains extant, although there may be some connection with our witness from Angers. On the other hand, it appears that Reichenau and St Gall worked together to produce some of their homiliaries (the summer volumes), but not all of them (the winter volumes). Finally, a clear link exists between two witnesses from North-east Francia and St Serge, and another link connects Reichenau with Cambrai and Arras.

161

1 62

c ha p te r 4

4.11. Conclusion Scholars have occasionally thought that Paul’s homiliary was used throughout the Carolingian Empire, perhaps even universally. I have showed the physical challenges of such a feat. The homiliary was simply too large for easy mass production, without the dedication of considerable resources. Meanwhile, the palaeo­graphical evidence points towards the homiliary’s dissemination from a number of areas, rather than from one. The dissemination of the homiliary remains impressive, however, as the great number of extant manu­ scripts demonstrates. A closer look at the transmission of the homiliary’s rubrics has revealed even further details. It looks as if the two volumes of the homiliary circulated independently of one another; Tours played a large role in disseminating the summer portion, but not the winter. There were undoubtedly more copies once extant, and I have unveiled some of the links between particular centres, regions, and witnesses.

Chapter 5

Optima decerpens The Theo­logy of Paul’s Collection When Charlemagne commissioned the homiliary of Paul the Deacon, he expressed a desire for a collection of patristic texts that would lend beauty, grace, and authority to the liturgical practices of the churches in his kingdoms. Upon receiving Paul’s homiliary, he expressed considerable pleasure at their eloquence, declaring that Paul had found ‘useful’ readings, the ‘best’ readings, ‘certain flowers’ from the Fathers’ ‘expansive meadows’, joined together like a garland.1 Scholars have often expressed similar evaluations.2 In the nineteenth century, Ernst Ranke was convinced that a critical edition of the homiliary would deliver some of the most theo­logically rich texts from the Western tradition, fitted well for contemporary Church reform.3 The great German historian of preaching, Johannes Marbach, declared Paul’s work ‘die vor­nehm­ ste Fundgrube des Mittel­alters’ (the noblest treasury of the Middle Ages).4 Cyril Smetana described the collection in glowing terms: ‘Here indeed is God’s plenty’.5 Rosamond McKitterick has noted that the collection would have provided preachers with an impressive array of theo­logical reflection for sermon construction.6 Only a few scholars have sounded negative notes, primarily by stating that the homiliary’s theo­logy might have been too complex for many potential users.7 This chapter is dedicated to a brief discussion of the homiliary’s theo­logical character. It is selective. The homiliary contains 243 patristic texts, some of considerable length. Furthermore, the range and character of the authors included in the homiliary prevent an even treatment. Some of the Church Fathers in Paul’s collection have received extensive attention in secondary literature, such as Augustine, Jerome, Leo, Origen, and Gregory the Great. The exegesis of other authors, like Bede, is receiving increasing attention, but few have focused directly on his Gospel homilies.8 Other homilies and  1 EG 28–29, 31. See Appendix 2.  2 See the Introduction to this volume for further details.  3 Ranke, ‘Zur Geschichte des Homiliariums Karl’s des Grossen’, pp. 395–96.  4 Marbach, Geschichte der deutschen Predigt vor Luther, p. 18.  5 Smetana, ‘Paul the Deacon’s Patristic Antho­logy’, p. 89.  6 McKitterick, The Frankish Church and the Carolingian Reforms, pp. 97–98, 102.  7 Gatch, Preaching and Theo­logy in Anglo-Saxon England, p. 34. Some slight questions on the usefulness of complex exegesis are raised by Smetana, ‘Ælfric and the Early Medi­eval Homiliary’, pp. 203–04.  8 Exceptions include van der Walt, ‘The Homiliary of the Venerable Bede and Early Medi­eval

1 64

c ha p te r 5

sermons in Paul’s collection, like those of Maximus II and of the ‘Latin’ John Chrysostom, do not exist in reliable editions, nor are there studies of their work. But no one has attempted to read all of these homilies together as a coherent collection. Thus, many of my comments in this chapter are initial observations, sometimes built off of little preceding work in the field. This is especially true when I make broad observations about the interaction of material in Paul’s compilation. Additionally, I give more attention to those authors on whom Paul drew most often: Bede, Gregory, Leo, and Maximus II. As I noted in Chapter 3, their writing accounts for over 60 per cent of the homiliary when counted by entry. When counted by line or folio, they provide even more, since Bede’s and Gregory’s texts are the longest in the collection, often more than twice as long as other entries. Before speaking directly on the theo­logy of the collection, I shall first offer some general comments on the overall emphases in the homiliary, in terms of the genre of texts that Paul drew on. I shall follow these notes with a brief reflection on the place of the Bible in the homiliary. Finally, I shall explore four areas of Christian doctrine, as they are reflected in Paul’s collection: Trinitarian doctrine, Christo­logy, eschato­logy, and ethics. These are four areas of teaching that Charlemagne’s Admonitio Generalis singled out as topics of special public concern, and they provide fitting fields of inquiry for approaching Paul’s text.

5.1. The Emphases of the Collection: Gospel Exegesis, Doctrinal Sermons The majority of texts in the homiliary come from only four authors: the Venerable Bede, Gregory the Great, Leo the Great, and Maximus II. A brief typo­logy of the writings of these four authors illuminates the character of Paul’s collection and general selections. Paul labelled nearly everything in his collection either a homelia or sermo.9 This is especially interesting since the authors he drew upon called their works by various names: homelia, tractatus, sermo, ennarratio, and so forth.10 The entries from Bede and Gregory are primarily Gospel homilies, with some selections from Bede’s commentaries on Luke and Mark. They offer exegesis for most of the major feasts of the year and thus on some of the most important texts of the Christian religion: Matthew, Luke, and John at Christmas, the Circumcision, and Epiphany, as well as the pro­logue of John’s Gospel;11 most of the Gospel texts read during Lent and Holy Preaching’; Martin, ‘The Two Worlds in Bede’s Homilies’.  9 Smetana, ‘Paul the Deacon’s Patristic Antho­logy’, pp. 78–79.  10 The classic secondary literature on this termino­logical problem is Mohrmann, ‘Praedicare– Tractare–Sermo’, pp. 100–107. See also Hall, ‘The Early Medi­eval Sermon’, pp. 203–11.  11 Scripture references here and in the following footnotes are roughly the length of the pericope excerpts in many manu­scripts: the actual homilies tend to comment on longer

Opt ima decerpens

Week;12 and the central narratives of Easter, Ascension, and Pentecost, with the Johannine discourses for the Sundays in between.13 Bede supplies homilies on Gospel texts assigned for many of the most important saints’ days, such as Holy Innocents, St John the Evangelist, St John the Baptist, the feasts of the Virgin Mary, Sts Peter and Paul, and St Andrew.14 Moreover, many of the Gospel texts for Sundays in ‘ordinary time’ (i.e. the time outside the major seasons) have entries assigned to them from Bede and Gregory’s works.15 One could create a suitable approximation of Paul’s text (and a fairly complete homiliary) simply by combining the Gospel homilies of Bede and Gregory. Indeed, Lawrence Martin suggested that Bede may have chosen the pericopes of his own homilies precisely for this sort of correspondence with Gregory’s work.16 Regardless of Bede’s intention, Paul seems to have seen the suitability and compatibility of their homilies. Leo and Maximus II, on the other hand, provide sermons for many of the same feasts. For the most part, they do not offer detailed biblical exegesis.17 Their sermons are dedicated to more direct explorations of the theo­logical significance of a particular event or doctrine: primarily, what these events reveal about the nature(s) of Christ or what is particularly remarkable about specific feasts. Leo’s sermons are important in this regard. Paul chose several of the texts that Leo drew on when constructing his Tome, submitted to the Council of Chalcedon as an authoritative statement of Christo­logical

 12  13

 14

 15

 16  17

portions of Scripture. Bede: Matthew 3. 13; Luke 1. 26–27; Luke 1. 39–40; Luke 2. 15–20; Luke 2. 21; part of Luke 2. 33–34 (interpolated into one of Origen’s sermons); John 1. 1–14. Gregory: Matthew 2. 1–2; Luke 2. 1–7; Luke 3. 1–2. Bede: Matthew 17. 1; Matthew 21. 1–2; Luke 11. 14; John 6. 1; John 11. 55; John 13. 1. Gregory: John 8. 46–47. Bede: Matthew 28. 1–2; Matthew 28. 16–18; Luke 24. 36; John 20. 19; John 20. 24–25. Gregory: Mark 16. 1–2; Mark 16. 15–16; Luke 24. 13–14; John 14. 23–24; John 21. 1–2; John 20. 11–12. The Sundays after the Octave of Easter are assigned Gospel readings on various dialogues of Jesus from John’s Gospel. Bede: John 14. 15; John 15. 26–27; John 16. 5–6; John 16. 16; John 16. 23–24. Gregory: John 10. 11–12. The choice of Bede and Gregory’s homilies over Augustine’s Tractatus in Iohannem is notable. Bede: St John the Evangelist ( John 21. 19–24), Holy Innocents (Matthew 2. 13–23), Purification of Mary (Luke 2. 22–35), Vigil of the Birth of St John the Baptist (Luke 1. 5–17); Birth of St John the Baptist (Luke 1. 57–68), the Beheading of St John the Baptist (Matthew 14. 1–12); the Nativity of Mary (Luke 1. 39–55); Vigil of St Peter (Matthew 16. 13–19); Sts Peter and Paul ( John 21. 15–19), and the Vigil of St Andrew ( John 1. 35–42). Gregory: St Andrew (Matthew 4. 18–22). Bede: Matthew 6. 24; Matthew 9. 18; Matthew 22. 15; Mark 7. 31; Mark 8. 1–2; Mark 9. 16; Mark 12. 18; Luke 2. 42–43; Luke 5. 17; Luke 6. 36–37; Luke 7. 11–17; Luke 10. 23–25; Luke 14. 1–2; Luke 17. 11–12; John 2. 1. Gregory: Matthew 4. 1–2; Matthew 20. 1; Luke 8. 4–5; Luke 13. 6; Luke 15. 1–2; Luke 18. 31. L. T. Martin, ‘Introduction’, in Bede, Homilies on the Gospels, trans. by Martin and Hurst, i, pp. xvi–xvii; Martin, ‘Bede and Preaching’, pp. 162–63. PD I:90 Dominica I in Quadragesima (GPD I:86), Leo, Tractatus 51 is something of an exception.

165

1 66

c ha p te r 5

doctrine.18 This contribution provided Paul’s collection with a particularly Western statement of Chalcedonian orthodoxy. I am not implying that the homilies of Bede, Gregory, and the other Church Fathers avoid the great topics of Christian theo­logy. Far from it. But their constant reference is to the Gospel text assigned to the day: the ‘lectio quae audiuimus’, ‘lectio hodierna’, ‘lectio euangelica’ (the reading which we heard, today’s reading, the Gospel reading). Among Bede’s homilies, only Homeliae I.13, I.14, and II.3 lack some such reference in their first several lines. This happens more commonly in Gregory’s work,19 even though his rhetoric relies on the reading in other ways. As pieces of interpretation, the homilies provide an orderly explanation of a text. Attention to grammar, rhetoric, and vocabulary is the heart of the enterprise. As Bede says regarding Luke 1. 30–32 (the verses of the Annunciation): ‘We should carefully note the order of the words here, and the more firmly they are engrafted in our heart, the more evident it will be that the sum total of our redemption consists in them.’20 Bede, Gregory, and the authors of other homilies in Paul’s collection usually begin with the literal level of the texts at hand. This task often involves, among other things, naming the circumstances of the events in the reading, answering questions about the tense of verbs, exploring the etymo­logies of the names of characters and places within the Gospel text, and answering questions or objections that arise from odd features within the reading.21 After this exploration, they begin moving to allegorical or ‘spiritual’ interpretations of Scriptural passages, as I shall explore further below. Paul’s systematic division of texts — into Gospel homilies and doctrinal sermons — may help us understand the character of his selections. The homilies are oriented towards clarifying the meaning of particular lectionary texts assigned during the liturgical year, while the sermons are dedicated to exploring the doctrinal implications of the events themselves. For example, PD I:8, Ebdomada I ante Natalem Domini (GPD I:8), Gregory, Homelia I.7, states ‘Because I am going to celebrate the Eucharist three times today, I can comment only briefly on the Gospel lesson. But the feast compels me to say  18 E.g. Tractatus 21, 22, 34, assigned as PD I:18 (GPD I:17), PD I:19 (GPD I:18), and PD I:60 (GPD I:56).  19 E.g. Homelia I.5, I.6, I.9, I.13, I.14, I.16, I.17, I.19, II.25, II.27, II.33, II.36, II.37.  20 PD I:11, Feria IV ante Natalem Domini (GPD I:11), Bede, Homelia I.3 (22).  21 These issues are addressed in nearly all the homilies, but some include explicit theoretical advice on addressing them. On seeking the mystica in each reading: PD I:96, Dominica III in Quadragesima (GPD I:92), Bede, Homelia II.2. Tense: PD I:11, Feria IV ante Natalem Domini (GPD I:11), Bede, Homelia I.3. On circumstances: PD II:11, In Feria IV Paschalis (GPD II:11), Gregory, Homelia II.24. Exploring etymo­logies: PD I:64, Dominica II post Theophaniam (GPD I:60), Bede Homelia I.14; PD I:103, (Holy Week) Feria IV (GPD I:99), Bede, Homelia II.4; and many others. Answering objections: PD I:11, Feria IV ante Natalem Domini (GPD I:11), Bede, Homelia I.3. See de Lubac’s magisterial Medi­eval Exegesis for more information on literal and spiritual exegesis in the Middle Ages.

Opt ima decerpens

something’ (70). Gregory then explores a handful of key features of Luke 2. 1–14, dedicating a few sentences to each one: the census at the time of Christ’s birth, the location of Bethlehem, and the appearance of angels to the shepherds. Even with little time, his attention is given to exposition. A sermon for the same season is quite different: PD I:18, De Natale Domini (GPD I:17), Leo, Tractatus 21. Leo considers several points about the Incarnation, explaining how the Son of God took on a complete human nature. Then he provides a technical explanation of the union of the divine and human natures. He stooped down to take upon himself our humility without decrease in his own majesty, that remaining what he was and assuming what he was not, he might unite the true form of a slave to that form in which he is equal to God the Father, and join both natures together by such a compact that the lower should not be swallowed up in its exaltation nor the higher impaired by its new associate. (379) After this sort of explanation, Leo then goes on to exhort his audience to live in a manner that ‘acknowledges your dignity’ (380), since Christ became a human being and glorified humanity. This typo­logy of homelia and sermo is not rigid. A middle ground exists, of which PD I:29, In Natale Domini, ad missas (GPD I:26), Bede, Homelia I.8 is an excellent example. It is the text for the primary Mass of Christmas Day and explains John 1. 1–14. Bede begins by pointing out why John the Evangelist is associated with an eagle: it ‘is wont to fly higher than all other birds and to direct its sight toward the rays of the sun more piercingly than all other living things’ (73–74). According to Bede, John’s deeper understanding of the mystery of the Godhead was what allowed him to ‘imbue’ the Church with proper doctrine, and Bede believes that the pro­logue of his Gospel refutes various heresies: in order, Arianism, Sabellianism, Ebionism, and Nestorianism (74–76). Bede does not name these heresies but outlines their position briefly as he explains the Gospel. Then, treating each verse of John’s pro­logue, Bede explores all sorts of theo­logical topics: the creation of the world, the nature of rationality, spiritual blindness, the difference between Jesus and John the Baptist, how God could become incarnate, spiritual regeneration, the wholeness of Christ’s humanity (76–82), and how both Christ and Mary are described as ‘full of grace’ (82). He ends with an explanation of how Christ’s incarnation provides its salutary effect (82–83). What should be clear is that Bede is concerned with doctrine and theo­ logical exploration, but the order in which he addresses his issues develops expositionally: it depends on the sequence of the Gospel verses themselves. In this way, his exploration of Christian doctrine is not simpler than Leo’s, but Leo had greater freedom to order his discourse. He did not base his exhortations on the sequence of any set of verses assigned for the day. These examples provide a sense of the general character of Paul’s selections, and the rather different ways that they provide examples of patristic doctrine.

1 67

1 68

c ha p te r 5

They also point to the difficulty of isolating particular texts in order to look at ‘topics’. One could look to the primarily doctrinal texts, like those of Leo and Maximus II, to glean what the collection has to say about the Trinity or Christo­logy. Similarly, one sermon attributed to Augustine is PD I:9, labelled De unitate Trinitatis et de incarnatione Domini (GPD I:9), assigned for the week before Christmas. But such an approach would be misleading. Most of the homiliary’s theo­logy is found in the midst of exegesis.

5.2. The Bible in Paul’s Collection: Texts and Theory The homiliary provides a significant amount of commentary on the Bible, but the biblical passages that are addressed in the collection remain limited. For the most part, the texts on which Paul’s authors comment are the Gospel texts assigned in the lectionary for reading at Mass on Sundays and feast days. There are only a handful of exceptions to this general rule. They mostly occur in sermons attributed to John Chrysostom, in which the author discusses the lives of particular figures from the Old Testament: Adam, Abraham, Jacob, Esau, Joseph, Moses, Jeremiah, David, Absalom, Jonah, the Ninevites.22 Notably, several of these assignments occur in seasons when the relevant Old Testament books might be read in the Office or at Mass, as Ordines Romani XIII and XIV show.23 I mention this point at the beginning of this section because, despite the great size of Paul’s collection, vast swathes of Scripture are necessarily excluded, including books or passages of interest to the Carolingians and of perennial interest to ancient, medi­eval, and modern audiences. There is no systematic explanation of the six days of creation.24 Paul’s Epistles receive  22 PD I:72, In Septuagesima: Quomodo primus homo omni prelatus est creaturae (GPD I:68), Ps-John Chrysostom, Sermo 6; PD I:74, In Sexagesima: De lapsu primi hominis (GPD I:70), Ps-John Chrysostom, Sermo 7; PD I:76, In Quinquagesima: De fide Abraham (GPD I:72), Ps-John Chrysostom, Sermo 8; PD I:89, Dominica I in Quadragesima: De Iacob et Esau (GPD I:85), Ps-John Chrysostom, Sermo 9; PD I:92, Dominica II in Qudragesima: De Ioseph (GPD I:88), Ps-John Chrysostom, Sermo 10; PD I:95, Dominica III in Quadragesima: De Moyse (GPD I:91), Ps-John Chrysostom, Sermo 12; PD I:97, Dominica ante palmas: De Hieremia (GPD I:93), Ps-John Chrysostom, Sermo 13; PD II:57, Dominica I post natale Apostolorum: De Dauid ubi Goliath in mane hostem deuicit (GPD II:56), Ps-John Chrysostom, Sermo 14; PD II:58, Dominica II post natale Apostolorum: De Absalom ubi Dauid patrem persequitur et de proelio fugiens obligato guttore arboris ramos suspenditur (GPD II:59), Ps-John Chrysostom, Sermo 15; PD II:129, In letania quando uolueris: De ieiunio Nineuitarum (GPD II:130), Ps-John Chrysostom, Sermo 20. References are to the ‘Latin’ Chrysostom in PLS 4, as noted at the beginning of this book.  23 Les Ordines romani du haut Moyen Âge, ed. by Andrieu, ii, 491–508.  24 The Carolingians expressed that interest elsewhere, it seems. See, e.g. Contreni, ‘Carolingian Biblical Studies’; Fox, ‘Alcuin the Exegete’; Gorman, ‘The Encyclopedic Commentary on Genesis Prepared for Charlemagne by Wigbod’; Gorman, ‘The Commentary on Genesis of Claudius of Turin’.

Opt ima decerpens

no direct treatment. The Prophets are not explained at length, nor are the historical books of the Old Testament, nor the Book of Revelation. Testimony from these books is brought in only as it pertains to the meaning of individual Gospel pericopes.25 Such a focus may point to the interest of Charlemagne or Paul in Gospel exegesis in particular or, at least, to their sense of the suitability of Gospel exegesis for the celebration of liturgy. Recall that the court’s Bible production focused also on evangeliaries.26 In this way, the emphasis in Paul’s collection differs from several collections that were created over the course of the ninth century. The later collections of Smaragdus, Rabanus Maurus, and Haymo and Heiric of Auxerre attempted to supply homilies on all of the readings of the Mass, not only on the Gospel readings. Similarly, other later collections, like that of Pseudo-Bede or the anonymous collection known in Co­logne, Dombibliothek, MS 172 (Mondsee, s. ix1/4) and CSG 422 (St Gall, s. ix1/2), were primarily focused on texts from the comes as well. The collection’s primary devotion to Gospel exegesis and doctrine does not, however, mean that it lacks a more holistic account of Scripture and interpretation. Several homilies provide explicit, theoretical discussions of biblical interpretation, and readers of Paul’s homiliary would have some guide towards the interpretation of the Old Testament, as well as the New. The most lengthy and detailed explorations of these topics appear in two homilies of Bede. PD I:64, Dominica II post Theophaniam (GPD I:60), Bede, Homelia I.14 on John 2. 1–12, is concerned with the story of the Wedding at Cana. Bede’s main source is a homily by Augustine on the same text; Augustine’s homily is also included in Paul’s homiliary.27 I shall treat only one for the sake of space, but I note that their similarity reinforces the possibility that readers of Paul’s homiliary were familiar with the account of Scripture I describe here. Bede begins his homily by stating its literal import, as he and Augustine see it: the presence of Christ at a wedding shows that human marriage is a legitimate state of life of which Christ approves. Not all are called to virginity. But, like many of the Church Fathers, Bede was convinced that the pericope had a larger significance as well: ‘There is a more profound gladness in the heavenly figural meanings’ (135). He notes the ‘mystical meaning’ of the circumstances of the wedding: its location and time, even the fact that Christ was ‘reclining’ when the wine ran out (136–37). After this point, the bulk of the sermon is devoted to providing an overall theory of Scriptural interpretation. Bede interprets the six stone water containers in the Gospel passage as ‘the hearts of the faithful’ in each of the six ages of the world (137–38). The faithful of

 25 E.g. PD I:60, Item de eodem Epiphaniorum die (GPD I:56), Leo, Tractatus 34; PD II:12, Item in Feria V Paschalis (GPD II:12), Gregory, Homelia II.25; PD II:30, In sabbato Pentecosten (GPD II:30), Bede, Homelia II.17.  26 Noble, Images, Iconoclasm, and the Carolingians, pp. 226–30.  27 PD I:1, Ebdomada V ante Natalem Domini (GPD I:1), Augustine, Tractatus in Iohannem 24:1–7.

169

1 70

c ha p te r 5

every age proffer examples for the human race to follow. Within each of these containers, the ‘water’ is the ‘knowledge of sacred scripture’ that spiritually cleanses and refreshes its hearers (137–38). Bede provides here a simple understanding of the function of Scripture, when it is properly understood: it directs and enriches the lives of its readers and hearers, not least through passing on moral examples.28 Bede mentions the story of Cain and Abel: those who are spurred by this story to seek good and avoid evil find ‘a vessel full of water’ (139). ‘But as different as water is from wine is the sense in which the Scriptures were understood before the Saviour’s coming from that [sense] which he himself revealed to the apostles when he came, and which he left to be perpetually followed by their disciples’ (139). After this statement, Bede provides brief examples of how specific events from each age of the world signify the life of the Church: from the killing of Abel to David’s elevation to kingship to Christ’s circumcision (139–45). Furthermore, Bede describes the spiritual interpretation of Scripture as both a mystical experience and a vocation. Whenever a reader interprets Scripture allegorically, they become spiritually inebriated in a manner that transforms their mind. However, this experience is not meant to be individual. Spiritual readers must pass on allegorical meanings publicly. Commenting on the fact that the stone containers mentioned in the passage were filled ‘to the top,’ Bede states: ‘Christ’s disciples […] rightly understood that there was no time among the ages of the world that was without its holy teachers, who opened up the way of life to mortals either by their words or their examples or their writings’ (144). This is only one example of how the homiliary’s texts might have provided its users with a holistic approach to Scriptural interpretation. PD I:96, Dominica III in Quadragesima (GPD I:92), Bede, Homelia II.2, could have functioned in much the same way. In this entry, Bede explains the Feeding of the Five Thousand. He begins by noting the literal meaning of the event and explains the significance of its circumstances. But he devotes most of his time to explaining what the miracle signifies: the five loaves and two fish signify the five books of Moses, the Psalms, and the Prophets. Christ’s multiplication of this food represents his opening of Scriptural meaning to the apostles and their successors. Here, too, Bede describes allegorical interpretation as a form of spiritual refreshment, but also as a task that spiritual teachers carry on in every age.29 The reason Christ ordered the apostles to gather up all of the leftover fragments of bread is that [Spiritual teachers] are ordered both ‘to gather up’ by meditating on the obscure points of the Scriptures which the crowd is unable to understand  28 Cf. also PD I:103, Feria II (GPD I:99), Bede, Homelia II.4, whose opening is dedicated to explaining exempla; likewise, the introduction of PD II:83, In mense septimo. Die sabbato (GPD II:85), Gregory, Homelia II.31.  29 See my ‘Holy Gluttons’.

Opt ima decerpens

on its own, and to preserve the results of their meditation and the Lord’s commandments in their writings for their own use as well as that of the crowd. This is what the apostles themselves and the evangelists did […]. This is what a large number of their followers, guides of the Church throughout the entire world, have done, by scrutinizing complete books of both testaments of the Scriptures in very diligent explanations. (20) Another entry that provides an explicit discussion of the relationship between the Old and New Testaments is PD I:6, Ebdomada I ante Natalem Domini (GPD I:6), Maximus of Turin, Sermo 20. It does so, not by providing examples of exegesis, as in Bede’s texts, but by comparing the relationship between the Old and New Testaments to a particular image. The reading is Luke 17. 35 (‘There will be two women grinding together: one will be taken and the other left’), a verse from one of Jesus’s declarations regarding the coming of the Son of Man and the kingdom of God. Maximus is concerned with ‘what the task of grinding grain consists in, then who the two women are […] and third, what the mill is and what the effect of grinding is’ (49). He notes that grain is ground in a mill by using two stones: one above and one below. The one above spins ‘with such velocity that it deceives the eyes with its speed’, while the one below sits still. Through this operation, the mill receives and cracks ‘the finest flour and meal’ out of the ‘kernels’ of grain (49). Maximus states that, in the same way, the New Testament is ‘superimposed’ on the Old, revealing its true meaning by its swift ‘revolution’ as its message circles the whole world (50). It is the holy Church that acts ‘through the operation of these millstones’, in order to provide food and instruction for the world. But a simple understanding of the Old Testament alone is, in his words, ‘vain’ (51). It is like trying to grind meal from a single millstone. Beyond these theoretical statements, there are a few other slightly different examples of Old Testament interpretation within the collection. A select number of sermons are devoted to the lives of Old Testament figures and to interpreting the Psalms, as I noted above. These sermons are attributed to John Chrysostom. What is perhaps most interesting here, however, is that the sermons do not engage in the same elaborate exegesis as Bede had done. Two excellent examples of this pattern are PD II:57, Dominica I post Natale Apostolorum: De Dauid ubi Goliath in mane hostem deuicit (GPD II:56), PseudoJohn Chrysostom, Sermo 14, and PD II:58, Dominica II post natale Apostolorum: De Absalom ubi Dauid patrem persequitur et de proelio fugiens obligato guttore arboris ramos suspenditur (GPD II:59), Pseudo-John Chrysostom, Sermo 15. David and Absalom are held forth as moral examples, one positive, one negative. David’s humility in attributing victory to God during his battle with Goliath is held up as an exemplary pattern of behaviour for kings in every time. On the other hand, Absalom’s foolishness in opposing his father’s hegemony is similar a straightforward negative example: his ultimate defeat and his ignominious death — catching his hair on the branches of a tree, before being run through by Joab (ii Samuel 18) — are a direct warning to any sons who might choose to rebel against their fathers. Creation itself will turn against them.

17 1

172

c ha p te r 5

Similarly, for this author, the story of Abraham and Isaac shows a straightforward example of faith and obedience, the sermon on Jacob and Esau addresses warring brothers and inheritance, Joseph provides an example of patient endurance of temptation, Moses shows the power of prayer (even over invading armies and the devil), and Jeremiah provides an example of being a righteous person in the midst of a disobedient nation. Old Testament figures provide direct examples for emulation in political and familial life. These are some of the only texts to make such direct comments on politics and domestic relationships. Generally, the homiliary follows the pattern identified by Rosamond McKitterick: the sermons exhibit ‘an indifference […] to public and “governmental” affairs’.30 But this makes the exceptions all the more interesting, especially given the homiliary’s use by Charlemagne and his sons. Two texts in the homiliary are dedicated to interpreting Psalms. The first is PD I:100, Dominica in palmas (GPD I:96), Maximus of Turin, Sermo 29, commenting on Psalm 22. The author first confirms that Psalms should be interpreted according to the brief preface or description given at their beginning, such as ‘Of David’ or ‘To the end’. Such a method was common in other Psalm commentaries, like that of Cassiodorus.31 Maximus of Turin’s psalm text stated: ‘Unto the end, for the risings of the dawn. A psalm of David himself ’ (69–70). Taking direction from this preface, he briefly describes an ordinary dawn before describing ‘the sun of justice’ (Malachi 4. 2), ‘that is, Christ the Lord’ (70). This is taken as a further justification that ‘this whole psalm is arranged with respect to the person of Christ’ (71). Maximus, in some ways, has an easy time, as this psalm was quoted by Jesus Christ during the passion in Matthew 27. 46 and Mark 15. 34. Thus, his interpretation of ‘They divided my garments among them’ and ‘My God, My God why have you forsaken me?’ is directly tied to the passion. However, he engages in a rather interesting method of exegesis regarding the verse ‘I am a worm and not a man’ (Psalm 22. 6). He considers the statement as an example of holy humility, before stating another reason the Lord is compared to a worm. They had similar beginnings: ‘a worm is procreated with no admixture of a foreign substance but from the virgin earth alone’ (71).32 So also was Christ born of a virgin. Maximus notes also that worms were produced from manna in Exodus 16. 20, and so he also compares Mary to manna, due to her bearing of the incarnate Word. She is ‘subtle, splendid, sweet, and virginal; coming in a heavenly way, she gave forth a food sweeter than

 30 McKitterick, The Frankish Church and the Carolingian Reforms, p. 113.  31 Cassiodorus: Explanation of the Psalms, trans. by Walsh, I, Preface, c. 2–3 (i, 29–30).  32 This comparison is common in patristic interpretation of Psalm 21. See Ruaro, ‘God and the Worm’ on its common comparison to Christ’s divine generation, rather than his earthly. On ‘the worm’, see also Guiliano, ‘The Cross in (Pseudo-)Dionysius’.

Opt ima decerpens

honey to all the peoples of the churches, and whoever fails to eat and feed upon it will be unable to have life in him’ (71–72). The second sermon devoted to Psalm interpretation is PD II:113, In natale plurimorum martyrum (GPD II:114), Augustine, Sermo 31 on Psalm 126. 5–6: ‘Those who sowed in tears shall reap in joy. Those who go out weeping, carrying seed to sow, shall come again, bearing sheaves’ (PL, 38:192–96). Without any introduction or explanation, Augustine claims that the Psalm applies to martyrs, if Christians are the members of Christ. What is important about this comment is that it only makes sense if one already assumes that the Psalms speak primarily of Christ and that statements about Christ may be extended to his members. This is an important methodo­logical point for exegesis, but it also raises the question of whether Paul’s collection assumes its audience already believe certain things about biblical interpretation. Once Augustine has determined that the Psalm verse applies to martyrs, however, he is no longer interested in the features of the other verses in the psalm, save for clarifying how this single verse may apply to martyrs and, perhaps, to all Christians. They sow by doing good, he says, laying down their lives and souls for others. They weep during their whole time in this world or, specifically, while being persecuted or killed. They ‘cry out’ (plorat) when they pray for others. They reap in the resurrection. Augustine applies the Psalm text to Christians by marshalling verses from across the Bible regarding sowing, weeping, and prayer. These two sermons give crucial examples of interpreting the Psalms by applying them to Christ and to the Church. These texts are thought to speak regarding the nature of Christ’s passion and, in the second example, the sufferings and efforts of Christians in the world. Few other guidelines are offered for how one should interpret the Psalms. But the very fact that they establish the referents of the texts as Christ and the Church is no small thing. Such a move would have supplied a guide to readers of Paul’s homiliary. Many other entries in Paul’s collection could have provided further general instruction in the theory and practice of Scriptural exegesis. For example, PD I:108, In Caena Domini (GPD I:104), Leo, Tractatus 58, states that Christ’s whole life and actions ‘were full of sacraments, full of mysteries’ (62), but that does not mean that the narratives do not record actual events. PD II:76, In natale sancti Cypriani (GPD II:78), Maximus, Sermo 10, symbolizes the two testaments and the two people, Jews and Gentiles, in the description of the return of the spies from Canaan in Numbers 13. 23 (29). Similarly, the many homilies in the collection provide direct examples of how to perform allegorical exegesis or how to resolve textual difficulties. But a full exploration of these many occasions in Paul’s text is not possible here. For now, I shall turn to specific doctrinal topics within the collection, in order to gain a sense of what sort of theo­logical instruction users of Paul’s homiliary might have gained.

17 3

1 74

c ha p te r 5

5.3. The Admonitio Generalis and Carolingian Theo­logy The homilies and sermons in the homiliary of Paul the Deacon touch on so many theo­logical topics that it is necessary to place limits on the investigation. I focus here on the topics outlined by Charlemagne in the Admonitio Generalis. The close links between this famous, programmatic piece of royal instruction sent out in 789, the circular letter De litteris colendis (c. 784), and Paul’s homiliary have long been recognized. My redating of the homiliary’s completion to the 790s, however, makes it even more relevant. It followed these programmatic texts and could assume and enact their priorities. In the Admonitio Generalis, Charlemagne advised his subjects on how to reform and correct their behaviour and beliefs. The text begins with a series of canons that may have been drawn from the canon law collection Pope Hadrian had sent to Charlemagne. However, the text eventually turns to a more direct address, in which Charlemagne gives special instruction to various audiences, such as clergy, bishops, monks, or ‘all’. Statements about theo­logy and especially about preaching come in both sections. For example, c. 32 states: ‘In the council of Carthage: before all else, that the doctrine of the Holy Trinity and of the incarnation, passion, resurrection and ascension into heaven of Christ is to be diligently preached to all.’33 Admonitio Generalis, c. 70 also requires bishops to examine the doctrinal beliefs of their priests, to ensure that they hold ‘the right beliefs’.34 The same capitula instructs bishops to ensure that priests ‘both understand the Lord’s Prayer themselves and preach it’. The lengthiest statements regarding theo­logy and preaching come in c. 82, however.35 Bishops are again instructed to ensure that their priests ‘govern’ God’s people correctly and preach to them ‘rightly and worthily’, not inventing new doctrine or ‘imaginings’ of their own mind, but preaching canonical doctrine that leads to eternal life. The doctrines that are outlined as ‘beneficial, worthy, and right’ are key. The first three topics in Admonitio Generalis, c. 82 are mentioned in a fashion that mirrors the Nicene Creed. Charlemagne wishes Carolingian priests to urge faith not only in God the Creator, but specifically in the Trinity: they must urge the faithful to believe that God is ‘one deity, substance, and majesty in the three persons of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit’. The section on Christ is rather less doctrinally specific, as we shall see in comparison to the material in Paul’s homiliary. It describes the main events of the life, passion, resurrection, and ascension of Christ, followed by his coming ‘in divine majesty to judge all men according to their proper deserts’. This statement is followed by a requirement to preach concerning the resurrection of the dead, especially that ‘people […] will receive the rewards of their merits in their

 33 Admonitio generalis, in Charlemagne: Translated Sources, trans. by King, p. 212.  34 Admonitio generalis, in Charlemagne: Translated Sources, trans. by King, p. 216.  35 Admonitio generalis, in Charlemagne: Translated Sources, trans. by King, pp. 219–20.

Opt ima decerpens

very same bodies’ (emphasis added). By far the longest section of the topics to preach on, however, has to do with outlining proper behaviour, rather than defining proper doctrine. Charlemagne wishes his people to know ‘the sins for which people are to be consigned to eternal punishment’, as well as the actions of those who ‘will possess the kingdom of God’. Preachers are to condemn the former and commend the latter with zeal. The list of sins in the Admonitio is drawn from Galatians 5. 19–21, in which the Apostle Paul enumerated eighteen ‘works of the flesh’, ranging from fornication to heresy to drunkenness.36 The list of good works or virtues is rather different, drawn from no single Scriptural source (and fewer in number): ‘love of God and neighbour, faith and hope in God, humility and patience, chastity and continence, kindliness and compassion, alms-giving and confession’. The Admonitio Generalis outlines the topics that Charlemagne thought were particularly important for clergy to know and preach to their people. They come in the context of an injunction to preach the orthodox Christian faith and not ‘imaginings’ of one’s own mind. These are the specific doctrines Charlemagne identifies as leading to eternal life, the most important theo­logical topics. Further, as the homiliary is a theo­logical and liturgical document commissioned by him, it would only make sense for it to contain some of the life-giving doctrine that he thought was most important. As I noted at the beginning of this chapter, Charlemagne claimed that this collection held the best of the patristic tradition. Thus, if we know the theo­logical topics most important to Charlemagne and we know that he thought his homiliary was the greatest collection of patristic texts in his cultural world, it behoves us to ask just what sort of doctrine is found in it and how it relates to the topics outlined in the Admonitio Generalis. This approach and focus is also justified by reference to other similar pieces of instruction from the period, such as Alcuin’s list of topics for the instruction of the Avars.37 This particular focus is also important because Milton Gatch’s primary objection to the use of Paul’s homiliary as a preaching tool or theo­logical source was based on a supposed disjunction between its texts and the topics commended by Carolingian church councils for popular preaching, such as resurrection, eternal reward, and virtues and vices. The homiliary’s contents are primarily exegetical, he claimed, not doctrinal or moral.38 However, if the collection turns out to contain significant exegesis, theo­logy, and moral exhortation, Gatch’s objection would be empty.

 36 Cf. Amos, ‘The Origin and Nature of the Carolingian Sermon’, pp. 221, 308–10, 313–19 on the use of virtue and vice lists in Carolingian preaching and the vernacular.  37 Alcuin, Epistula 110, ed. by Dümmler, pp. 158–59; Amos, ‘The Origin and Nature of the Carolingian Sermon’, pp. 258–59.  38 Gatch, Preaching and Theo­logy in Anglo-Saxon England, pp. 28–34.

17 5

176

c ha p te r 5

5.4. God the Trinity: Foundations What is clear when reading Paul’s homiliary is that its texts urge faith in God as Trinity. Trinitarian doctrine suffuses the homiliary. Some entries are dedicated explicitly to imparting teaching of this kind, such as PD I:9, Homilia infra ebdomadam ante natalem Domini: De unitate Trinitatis et de incarnatione Domini (GPD I:9), Pseudo-Augustine, Sermo 245, and PD I:99, In traditione symboli (GPD I:95), Maximus II, Homilia 83. But Trinitarian teaching also appears in many other homiliary entries. At the simplest level, teaching about (or praise of) the Trinity is present in most of the homilies and sermons in the collection, since many of them end with a concluding Trinitarian doxo­logy as part of their explicit.39 What is more important is that many of them represent a distinct Western strand of Trinitarian theo­logy; they describe the Holy Spirit as the bond or unity between the Father and the Son, a position held especially by Augustine, who saw the Spirit as especially deserving of the title ‘love’, proceeding from and the common gift of both the Father and the Son.40 The most common doxo­logy in the collection is that of Bede and Gregory the Great. No matter the topic of their homilies, they frequently end with some version of ‘through our Lord Jesus Christ, who lives and reigns with the Father in the unity of the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever’ (‘per Iesum Christum dominum noster qui uiuat et regnat cum patre Deus in unitate spiritus sancti per omnia saecula saeculorum’). This is the common conclusion of ‘collect’ prayers used at Mass and the Daily Office in the Western tradition. Of Bede’s fifty homilies, only five deviate significantly from this pattern.41 The same is true of the texts of Origen, Gregory, and Leo in Paul’s homiliary. The Trinitarian doxo­logies serve as an all-pervasive, almost percussive, refrain that would have driven home Western Trinitarian teaching, as well as encourage the homiliary’s readers or hearers to direct their praise and gratitude towards God the Trinity. The way the collection assumes and reinforces belief in God the Trinity may also be seen in the way Trinitarian doctrine forms part of the basic architecture of doctrine, supporting its authors’ interpretation of Scripture. For example, Maximus II delights in finding small indications of the Trinity in various parts of Scripture. In one of his sermons for Christmas, he argues that faith in the virgin birth is not difficult because there have been at least three extraordinary births in Scripture: the creation of Adam from earth, the creation of Eve from Adam, and the birth of Christ. In these ‘you discover

 39 Hall, ‘The Early Medi­eval Sermon’, pp. 209–10, argues that Caesarius of Arles pioneered the use of the concluding doxo­logy to reinforce doctrine. Cf. Amos, ‘Caesarius of Arles, the Medi­eval Sermon and Orthodoxy’.  40 Augustine, De Trinitate 15.17.27–30.  41 E.g Homelia I.2, I.19, II.4, II.9, II.18.

Opt ima decerpens

the Trinity’ (‘reperies Trinitatem’).42 The same author believes that it is fitting that Epiphany celebrates three ‘mysteries’: the star that led the Magi, the baptism of Jesus, and the transformation of water into wine. Such a triple celebration befits a people ‘who confess, under God’s one name, the unspeakable secret of the Trinity (ineffabilis Trinitatis arcanum)’.43 Similarly, he says that three Magi come and adore Christ in a single journey because ‘the undivided Trinity’ was worshipped by them ‘in one Jesus Christ, who is the way of all the faithful’.44 Trinitarian confession demands Trinitarian celebration, worship, and exegesis. Bede and Gregory the Great also cite Trinitarian doctrine casually in their biblical interpretation.45 Their exegesis can be difficult to summarize, so I shall only cite one example. Gregory believes that the miraculous catch of 153 fish in John 20. 1–14 signified the necessity of Trinitarian faith. ‘The evangelist would not have told us the exact number unless he had judged it was replete with mystery’, he says.46 Gregory breaks the number down as signifying the combination of the ten commandments of the Old Testament and the seven commands in the New, which are fulfilled properly by someone who has faith in the Trinity and is filled with the Holy Spirit. He expresses this combination as equivalent to 3(10+7) = 51. But we must go further, he says. This number is only equivalent to the work of a Christian, yet the number 51 commonly signifies the cessation of work in the Old Testament, through the attainment of the Jubilee year every fifty-one years (Leviticus 25. 8–13). Thus, we must multiply the number further: not only are the labours of every Christian directed towards the Trinity, but also their rest and peace. The equation becomes 3(10+7) × 3 = 153. My point is not to comment on the validity of Gregory’s numero­logical interpretation — it appears strange to many modern eyes — but I am drawing attention to how faith in the Trinity acts as a validating foundation for more constructive, complicated exegesis in his homiletic theo­logy. He not only preaches Trinitarian faith, but he assumes it, allowing it to permeate the rest of his thought. This is a characteristic of much of Paul’s collection.

 42 PD I:23, Item cuius supra de natale domini (GPD I:22), Maximus II, Homilia 12 (PL, 57:248C).  43 PD I:49, Item unde supra (GPD I:45), Maximus II, Homilia 23 (PL, 57:273B). See similar state­ments by him in PD I:57, Item cuius supra (GPD I:53), Maximus II, Homilia 29 (PL, 57:289B, 291C); and PD I:58, Item eiusdem de eodem die (GPD I:54), Maximus II, Homilia 34 (PL, 57:298C).  44 PD I:59, Item eiusdem de eodem die (GPD I:55), Maximus II, Homilia 35 (PL, 57:299–302).  45 See, e.g. PD I:62, In octavas Theophaniae (GPD I:58), Bede, Homelia I.12 (ll. 35–138); PD II:125, In dedicatione Ecclesiae (GPD II:126), Bede, Homelia II.24 (ll. 256, 270); PD I:98, Item dominica ante palmas (GPD I:94), Gregory, Homelia I.18 (l. 81).  46 PD II:11, Item in Feria IV Paschalis (GPD II:11), Gregory, Homelia II.24 (182).

17 7

1 78

c ha p te r 5

5.5. Definitions of the Trinitarian Relations Throughout the rest of the collection, discussions of Trinitarian doctrine vary in complexity and in their mode of presentation. As one might expect, the simplest explanation of the relationship between the three persons of the Trinity is offered in PD I:99, In traditione symboli (GPD I:95), Maximus II, Homilia 83 (PL, 57:433–40). As I noted in Chapter 2, this text was apparently included for the occasion of teaching baptismal candidates the meaning of the Apostles’ Creed. The author’s essential commitment to Trinitarian doctrine is clear, but he is quick to affirm that a number of topics are beyond the grasp of human reason, such as the nature of God, his power, and the begetting of the Son from the Father. He states (PL, 57:433B): ‘Cuius sic virtus sentitur, ut quantitas ejus et qualitas ignoretur: esse enim illius et posse non discutiendo assequimur, sed credendo’ (His power is sensed only to the extent that his quantity and quality is unknown: for we cannot follow his being and power by debating them but by believing). Similarly, regarding Christ, the author states that he is the ‘Only-Begotten Son’ and tells his hearers (PL, 57:434A): ‘Filium audis, non ut illum sexu aliquo editum putes, sed ut credas incomprehensibili majestate Deum prodiisse de Deo’ (You hear ‘Son’, not that you might suppose he was begotten with a specific sex, but that you might believe God has proceeded from God in incomprehensible majesty). The author does not use the term Trinitas in this exposition of the Creed, though he uses it in his other sermons included in Paul’s collection, as I have already noted. In this explanation of the Creed, he is more concerned to ground his teaching in direct statements of Scripture, as my translation notes, referring to seven separate Scriptural texts in several condensed phrases. When commenting on the phrase ‘Do you believe in the Holy Spirit?’, he states: Haec est, carissimi, inoffensa regula veritatis, ut quorum unum nomen est, non sit eorum diversa confessio, et qui in coelo apud se unum sunt, a nobis non separentur in terris. Nam sicut Divinitati nihil de creaturis aequari potest, ita omnem divisionem et inaequalitatem natura Divinitatis excludit. Secundum enim evangelicam veritatem, sicut Filius a Patre evivit, ita et Spiritus a Patre procedit; et Unigenitus, sicut Filius Dei est, ita et Spiritus sanctus Dei est; et sicut Pater cui vult miseretur, et Filius cui vult Patrem revelat, ita etiam Spiritus et inspirare legitur prout vult, et dona coelestium gratiarum dividere prout vult. Quomodo ergo non unum esse cum Patre Filioque credendus est Spiritus, cui aeque adjacet posse quod vult? (PL, 57:436C–437A) [This, beloved, is the untrammelled measure of truth, that those whose name is one, may not be divided in [our] confession, and those who are one amongst themselves in heaven may not be separated by us upon earth. For as there is nothing among created things that can equal the Godhead, so also the nature of divinity excludes division

Opt ima decerpens

and inequality. For according to the Gospel truth, as the Son lives by the Father ( John 5. 21–26), so also the Spirit proceeds from the Father ( John 15. 26). And just as the Only-begotten is Son of God, so also is the Holy Spirit of God (Eph. 4. 30). And as the Father ‘has mercy on whomever’ he wills (Rom. 9. 18), and the Son ‘reveals the Father to whomever he wills’ (Luke 10. 22), so also the Spirit, as it is read, ‘inspires as he wills’ ( John 3. 8) and gives the gifts of heavenly graces as he wills (i Cor. 12. 11). Therefore, how can the Spirit not be believed to be one with the Father and the Son, to whom it is equally attributed that he can do what he wills?] Our author is not concerned with teaching specific formulae about the Trinity beyond the Creed, preferring instead to refer to specific biblical passages and a few basic points about the essential unity of the Godhead. He warns his audience about venturing much further beyond these points. He does not even mention that there are three ‘persons’ in one substance of the Godhead. Notably, this author provides no teaching or even casual mention of the filioque or the inter-Trinitarian relations, even though, as I have already noted, the pervasive doxo­logies of Paul’s homiliary point towards a particular Western understanding of divine unity. This text is meant to be a commendation of basic teaching, suitable for baptismal candidates, but it is notable that it does not match up entirely with the Admonitio Generalis, which commends preaching of ‘one deity, substance, and majesty in the three persons of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit’. Other materials in the homiliary go a bit further. As I mentioned above, Bede’s Homelia I.8 is included, which wards off both Arianism and Sabellianism. In it, he argues against ‘the heretics’ lack of faith’ (74), which prevents them from seeing that the opening verses of John not only show that the Word ‘was begotten without any temporal beginning’ (74–75), but also that the Father, Son, and Spirit are distinct and yet united in one unchanging substance. The Word was with God ( John 1. 1) […] If the one was with the other, the Father and the Son are unquestionably two. And they are not one as if he himself were now Father, now Son, and now also Holy Spirit, and as if the nature of the divine substance were mutable. The apostle James (1. 17) says most clearly ‘With whom there is no transmutation nor shadow of altering’. (75) Similar refutations of heresy occur in various homilies of the collection, though it is more common for fairly specific points of doctrine to be brought in as a matter of course, including the filioque. While explaining the meaning of John 20. 21 (‘As the Father sent me’), Gregory takes an opportunity to explain the equality of the divine nature and the difference of the divine persons in their relation to each other: ‘If being sent had to be understood only in the sense of becoming human, the Holy Spirit could in no way be called “sent” […]. The sending of the Spirit is that procession by which he proceeds from the Father

17 9

1 80

c ha p te r 5

and the Son.’47 Bede also feels little need to justify a belief in the filioque in his homilies. It is simply asserted, as in PD II:30, In sabbato Pentecosten (GPD II:30), Bede, Homelia II.17 (165, 166). One of the lengthiest discussions of Trinitarian doctrine occurs in an entry assigned for the week before Christmas: PD I:9 (GPD I:9). Paul labelled it De unitate Trinitatis et de incarnatione Domini and attributed it to Augustine, although it is probably not Augustine’s work (PL, 39:2196–98). This sermon or treatise was composed in order to refute particular errors attributed to Jews, Manichees, and other unnamed groups, and it has a fairly systematic argument arranged around a handful of assertions. The treatise refers to the essential character and unity of the Godhead in a manner not unlike the Athanasian Creed (PL, 39:2196): ‘Deus unus est Pater, Deus unus est Filius, Deus unus est Spiritus sanctus; non tres dii, sed unus est Deus: tres in vocabulis, unus in deitate substantia’ (The Father is one God, the Son is one God, the Holy Spirit is one God; he is not three Gods, but one God: three in name, one in the Godhead of substance). The second section discusses how Christ alone was incarnate, although ‘the majesty’ and presence of the whole Godhead was with him; the author thus avoids Sabellianism and Patripassianism. The author compares this Triune presence and operation to that seen in a stringed instrument: Ars dictat, manus tangit, resonat chorda. Tria pariter operantur; sed sola chorda personat quod auditur: […]. Sic nec Pater nec Spiritus sanctus susceperunt carnem; et tamen cum Filio pariter operantur. Sonum sola chorda excutit; carnem solus Christus suscepit. (PL, 39:2197) [Art directs it, a hand touches it, and the string resounds. The three work equally, but only the string gives a noise that is heard. […] Thus, the Father and the Holy Spirit do not assume flesh, and yet they work equally with the Son. Only the string gives forth a sound; only Christ takes on flesh.] Other than the treatise’s aim at Judaism and Manichaean heresy, its theo­logy is not unlike Gregory of Nyssa’s Letter to Ablabius (also known as On ‘Not Three Gods’) or Ambrose’s work De fide, a letter to Gratianus Augustus. In these works, Gregory and Ambrose make the specific argument that the Godhead is one in operation (indeed, that the Godhead may even be equated with ‘operation’). They also provide the treatise’s opening biblical quotation of Deuteronomy 6. 4 and the phrase non tres dii.48 The comparison to the cithara, the stringed instrument, is probably inspired by Augustine, if not genuinely Augustinian. There is an interesting passage in Augustine’s comments on Psalm 56. For him, in reference to Christ, the cithara represents the suffering of Christ’s flesh, rather than the whole work of the whole Trinity.49  47 PD II:15, Dominica in octabas Paschae (GPD II:15), Gregory, Homelia II.26 (202).  48 See Ambrose, De fide 2.7, 2.9, 3.23, 6.50, 7.58, 13.114.  49 Augustine Ennarationes in Psalmos 56.16.29–33, ed. by Dekkers: ‘Sed quid est psalterium?

Opt ima decerpens

As is clear, Paul’s homiliary contains a great variety of material commending faith in the Trinity. Trinitarian doctrine pervades the work, including a specifically Western form of it. Language about the filioque is common, though not ubiquitous. Finally, there are some instances of simple teaching, such as the material for baptismal candidates, but the collection as a whole does not avoid rather specific statements of doctrine, such as equating the divine substance with operation. In all of this, the collection perhaps goes even further than Charlemagne had hoped in the Admonitio Generalis.

5.6. Christo­logy and Chalcedon Another basic requirement of the Admonitio Generalis was that preachers teach the faithful about the great events of Christ’s incarnation, passion, resurrection, ascension, and return to judge the world. These fundamental aspects of Christo­logy are present in Paul’s work, but his text contains material that is much more advanced. I have already mentioned that the core of Leo the Great’s Tome is present in Paul’s homiliary. Western Chalcedonian teaching on the two natures of Christ was thus preserved and read in Paul’s compilation. What is important to note as well is that the fundamental assumptions of Leo’s Chalcedonian Christo­logy were repeated in the homilies of Bede and Gregory, which make up so much of Paul’s collection. As with Trinitarian theo­logy, Chalcedonian Christo­logy sometimes forms the substructure for exegesis. PD I:103, Feria II (GPD I:99), Bede, Homelia II.4 (37–38) interprets Mary Magdalene’s anointing of Jesus in Bethany as a type of believing in the two natures of Christ, in that she anointed his head (divinity) and feet (humanity). Bede also attributes different actions to each nature of Christ: PD II:30, In sabbato Pentecosten (GPD II:30), Bede, Homelia II.17 (165), ‘He will intercede [for us] with the Father through his humanity, and he will give [the Spirit] with the Father through his divinity.’ In Gregory’s work, we find similarly pithy statements, such as ‘There was in the Lord a human nature […]. There was in the Lord a divine nature.’50 There are many other examples of this overall emphasis as well, which is the so-called ‘partitive exegesis’ pioneered by Athanasius.51

quid est cithara? per carnem suam dominus duo genera factorum operatus est, miracula et passiones: miracula desuper fuerunt, passiones de inferiore fuerunt […]. Caro ergo diuina operans, psalterium; caro humana patiens cithara est’. Cf. 149.8. There, crucifixion is precisely God’s way of making music in the world, whether in the stretched strings of harps, in the stretched body of the Crucified, or in the suffering of the saints. Interestingly, no such comparison of the cithara with Christ occurs in Augustine’s earlier De Musica. But see the distinction between sounds and rhythm made and received by the flesh, as opposed to rhythm in the soul in De Musica 6.XI.32–34.  50 PD II:12, Feria V Paschalis (GPD II:12), Gregory, Homelia II.25 (196).  51 For the sake of space, I will list the examples without reference to their assignment in PD.

181

1 82

c ha p te r 5

Bede also takes a position on a problem in Christo­logy that has continued to be debated in the modern period: namely, whether we should conceive of the human personhood of Jesus Christ as distinct from the divine mind and will. This is partly an extension of the question of Monothelitism, the issue of whether Christ has one will or two wills. Bede articulates a carefully balanced position, described in modern systematics as anhypostatos/enhypostatos physis.52 That is, Bede thinks that the human personality of Jesus Christ was never independent, but it subsisted within the persona of the Word, from the moment of its initial creation. Bede is quite careful. The man Jesus Christ is never, at any point, not God the Word. Gratia plenus erat idem homo christus iesus cui singulari munere prae ceteris mortalibus datum est ut statim ex quo in utero uirginis concipi et homo fieri inciperet uerus esset et deus. [Filled with grace was the same human, Christ Jesus, to whom, by a singular gift beyond other mortals, it was given that, immediately from the time when he would begin to be conceived in the womb of the Virgin and to become a human being, he should also be true God.]53 By using the phrase ‘immediately from the time he would begin (statim ex quo […] inciperet) to be conceived’, Bede wards off any potential assertion of Adoptionism, Eutychianism, or Nestorianism, but also locates the Word’s assumption of humanity in a kind of atemporal moment. This instant can be thought of, but it cannot be pinned down historically. This particular issue became important in the Adoptionist controversies of the 790s, when Elipandus of Toledo and Felix of Urgel asserted that the human nature of Christ was ‘adopted’ as the Son of God and could not be referred to properly as God.54 In his anti-Adoptionist writings, Alcuin does not cite this particular work of Bede explicitly, though some similar phrases appear in his Adversus Elipandum.55 He draws on other works of Bede and cites him as an authority in his letter-preface to Contra Felicem, written to Charlemagne.56 Bede, Homelia I.5 (44), I.11 (104), I.12 (115), I.15 (155), I.18 (182), I.19 (191), II.4 (37–38), II.16 (150, 158), II.17 (165); Gregory, Homelia II.25 (191).  52 About which, see Crisp, Divinity and Humanity, ch. 3, esp. pp. 72–75 and the literature cited there; also Barth, Church Dogmatics, p. 163. It is the groundwork for a model of ‘noncompetitive transcendence’, remaining important in contemporary theo­logy.  53 PD I:29, In Natale Domini, ad missas (GPD I:26), Bede, Homelia I.8 (ll. 253–55).  54 See Pelikan, The Growth of Medi­eval Theo­logy, pp. 52–58; Chazelle, The Crucified God in the Carolingian Era, pp. 55–59; Cavadini, The Last Christo­logy of the West, pp. 74–80.  55 Alcuin, Adversus Elipandum Libri IV 1.8, in PL, 101:240C: ‘immediately, in his very concep­ tion and nativity, the true God was born as Christ’ (‘statim in ipso conceptu et nativitate Deus verus natus est Christus’); 245A: ‘Christ was immediately the proper Son of God from his conception because he was never apart [from the Son]’ (‘statim fieret Christus proprius Filius Dei ab ipso conceptu, quia nunquam alienus fuit’).  56 See Alcuin, Contra Felicem Libri VII, in PL, 101:119–230D, at 138A, 161B, 186A, 187B, 193A, 194C, 196B citing, explicitly, his commentaries on the Song of Songs, Acts (twice), Luke,

Opt ima decerpens

He also appears to invoke Bede’s interpretation of the Feeding of the Five Thousand, mentioned above, in the same preface.57 Paulinus of Aquileia, on the other hand, does not quote Bede, but citation of patristic authorities plays a smaller role in his writings, limited primarily to the closing chapters of Contra Felicem.58 Although it is not clear that Bede’s Homelia I.8 (or, indeed, many of the texts in Paul’s homiliary) played a large role in the Adoptionist controversy, it seems unlikely that the Christo­logical focus in the homiliary was an accident, especially if it was completed in the 790s, as I argued earlier. Nor does it strain credulity to think that Paul chose Bede’s clear statement for the homily of Christmas Day with the controversy in mind. Additionally, Bede’s articulation of this point, and the wide reading of this homily in the Latin West, explains the source of a general assumption among later medi­eval theo­logians that the human nature of Christ subsists in the Word, yet also explains why such theo­logians did not use the termino­logy anhypostatos/ enhypostatos, usually thought to derive from the Eastern theo­logian John of Damascus (ad 675–749).59 Medi­eval authors were not simply reading John on this topic; it was present in the Western tradition already.60 However, it seems that the early Protestant scholastics, who disputed at length on this topic and often asserted there was no settled position in the West, took their articulation of this position from John of Damascus, not from Bede.61 Such a return and rearticulation of traditional doctrines, with reference to patristic doctrine and earlier medi­eval scholasticism, is a characteristic of second- and third-generation Protestant orthodoxy, as Richard Muller has discussed.62

Acts (again), the Catholic Epistles, and Mark. Quotes attributed to Bede do not appear in Alcuin’s other anti-Adoptionist writings.  57 Alcuin, Contra Felicem Libri VII, Preface, in PL, 101:128A–B: ‘Hos quinque panes et duos pisciculos simul septenario numero consecratos, de apostolicae fidei pera prolatos vestrae sanctissimae auctoritati direxi, domine mi David, ut Dei Christi benedictione multiplicati, per vos esurienti populo et in desertis locis habitanti ad satietatem catholice ministrentur. In hoc namque opusculo catholicae fidei veritatem ex sanctorum Patrum 789 certissimis probare testimoniis nisus sum, id est, beati Hieronymi, atque sancti Augustini, Gregorii papae Romani, Hilarii Pictaviensis episcopi, Leonis quoque papae, et Fulgentii episcopi, Ambrosii quoque Mediolanensis episcopi; sed et fortissimi contra Nestorium militis beati Cyrilli; Petri etiam Ravennensis episcopi, et beati Bedae presbyteri, Gregoriique Nazianzeni; nec non et Isidori Hispaniensis et Juvenci ejusdem provinciae scholastici.’  58 See Paulinus, Contra Felicem libri tres, iii.12–13, 19–29, ed. by Norberg, pp. 96–97, 104–20.  59 See, e.g., Cross, The Metaphysics of the Incarnation, p. 245.  60 Cf. Pelikan, The Growth of Medi­eval Theo­logy, p. 56: ‘What the Western defenders of orthodoxy did in response to adoptionism was to assert their equivalent of the Eastern doctrine of “enhypostaton”’.  61 Lang, ‘Anhypostatos-enhypostatos’; Gleede, The Development of the Term Enupostatov, pp. 1–6. The somewhat marginal position of Bede’s homilies at the time of the Reformation is noted in Frantzen, ‘The Englishness of Bede, Then and Now’, pp. 235–38, although his focus is on England. A fuller study of the Reformation reception of Bede’s theo­logy is desirable.  62 Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, i, 16–23.

183

1 84

c ha p te r 5

Bede’s position on the human nature of the Word allows him to resolve certain theo­logical difficulties in biblical texts, such as John 3. 13 and Acts 20. 28. The former states in the Vulgate version that ‘No one has ascended into heaven except the one who descended from heaven, the Son of Man who is in heaven.’ PD II:16, In Pascha annotina (GPD II:16), Bede, Homily II.18, states that it is the unity of Christ’s person that allows him to be the one who descended by taking on a body, but also the one who would ascend into heaven bodily, and the one who remained in heaven while on earth. This ‘single personality of Christ, which comprises two natures’ (182), he says, also explains how Paul could say in Acts 20. 28 that God obtained the Church ‘by his own blood’. Bede explains: ‘It was not in his own substance but in the human nature he assumed that God possessed the blood he poured forth on behalf of the Church’ (182). Bede’s Christo­logy allows him not only to explain certain problematic issues in doctrine, but also to provide concrete explanations of difficult biblical texts.

5.7. Looser Christo­logical Formulations: Origen and Maximus II In contrast to this clear articulation of an advanced version of Western Chalcedonian doctrine, two authors included in the homiliary are rather less careful in their formulations: Origen and Maximus II. Generally speaking, this point should not surprise us. Origen lived in the third century, well before the Council of Chalcedon or even the Council of Nicaea. We cannot expect him to express himself entirely in the terms of Chalcedonian orthodoxy, even if his doctrine was sometimes modified by his translators, as we know it was. Similarly, Maximus II almost certainly wrote in the middle of the fifth century, perhaps before and immediately after the Council of Chalcedon.63 That said, what may be surprising to some is that Paul still included their writings in his homiliary. This fact has led Michael Herren to argue that Paul was perhaps sympathetic to positions that were formally defined as heresy, especially Mono- or Miaphysitism.64 Herren’s overall argument relies very little on Paul’s articulation of his own views. Rather, he focuses on how Paul presents the Three Chapters Controversy in his historical accounts of conciliar decisions, papal politics, and the theo­logical opinions of Eastern Emperors. Herren’s conclusion regarding these historical works is that Paul ‘had not fully grasped the issue’.65 Only within this overall argument does Herren briefly adduce the example of Paul’s

 63 I have argued this point at two conferences: Guiliano, ‘The Sermons of Maximus II’; Guiliano, ‘The Sermons of Maximus II of Turin’.  64 Herren, ‘Theo­logical Aspects of the Writings of Paul the Deacon’.  65 Herren, ‘Theo­logical Aspects of the Writings of Paul the Deacon’, p. 232.

Opt ima decerpens

inclusion of a homily attributed to Origen, in which Herren believes he has found some problems: (1) an emphasis on ‘Mary’s role as a container of the undivided divinity’ (he focused on the phrase ‘perfecta deitas in corpore venit’), (2) no mention of ‘the complete human nature of the Incarnate Word’, and (3) the use of Philippians 2. 5, putatively ‘favored [sic] by Alexandrian theo­logians with Monophysite tendencies’.66 Leaving aside the question of Paul’s historical works, it is possible to come to a different conclusion regarding the homiliary and even the homily Herren cites. First of all, it is unsurprising that the author of this homily refers to Philippians 2. 5. The verse is contained in one of the most important passages on Christo­logy in the New Testament; it was a locus of reflection since before the Arian controversy and beyond. Christian theo­logians simply refer to this verse when discussing the Incarnation, as Leo the Great did when providing a classic Christo­logical definition, noted above.67 Second, Herren seems to ignore or mistranslate material that he quotes from this homily. The author does not only refer to God coming ‘into a body’ (‘in corpore’), but also ‘into a human’ (‘in humano’), and it is not clear that this ‘in humano’ refers to the Virgin Mary, as opposed to the assumed human nature of the Word. Third, even if I were wrong in my interpretation, I am not sure how sympathetic Paul could be to Monophysitism, when he included authors like Leo, Gregory, and Bede, who often directly refuted Monophysitism. At most, one could only conclude that Paul was inconsistent. But if Paul was inconsistent for including a homily with a stray phrase like ‘perfecta deitas in corpore venit’, his confusion was shared or transmitted on occasion by many other orthodox authors, both before and after Chalcedon, such as Hilary of Poitiers, Jerome, Ambrose, Bede, Rabanus Maurus, and Thomas Aquinas.68 In the East, for example, such formulations are easily found in the works of Athanasius, who did not emphasize the complete character of the humanity of the Word.69 It is not a distinctive feature of Paul the Deacon’s selection. Part of the inheritance of Chalcedon was a deliberate lack of concern over what has been labelled ‘partitive’ or ‘two-nature’ exegesis and also what we might call selective reference to one of the natures of Christ, instead of both.70 That is, the traditional identification of particular actions of Christ with one  66 Herren, ‘Theo­logical Aspects of the Writings of Paul the Deacon’, p. 229. This latter judge­ ment is attributed to P. T. R. Gray of York Uni­ver­sity, Toronto, without reference to any fifth-century texts.  67 See p. 167.  68 Jerome, Tractatus lix in psalmos 67.97; Ambrose, Expositio psalmi cxviii xi 3.20; Ambrose, De fide 2.5.33; Hilary of Poitier, Tractatus super psalmos 118.14.11; Bede, In Marci euangelium expositio 4.14.801; Rabanus Maurus, Expositio in Matthaeum 8.89; Thomas Aquinas, Catena aurea in Marcum 14.8.41. For all of these authors, the phrase is some version of deus in corpore.  69 See, e.g., Quasten, Patro­logy, iii, 72–76.  70 Such a strategy is commended in Cyril of Alexandria’s letter and in the Tome of Leo included in Chalcedon’s documents. See the overview of partitive exegesis in Koen, ‘Partitive Exegesis in Cyril of Alexandria’s Commentary on the Gospel according to St John’,

185

1 86

c ha p te r 5

of his natures, instead of with both, was allowed and followed, even though it was recognized to be, technically speaking, untrue.71 The opposite was licit as well; one could simply say, liturgically and homiletically, that ‘God died’ or, to use the words of Scripture, ‘God shed his blood’ (Acts 20. 28). As Johannes Quasten has noted, within a single Church Father, such as Gregory of Nyssa, one can find an oscillation between attributing individual actions to each nature and then to both.72 The Council’s clearer definition of the natures of Christ allowed for a freer use of language, indeed the Church’s traditional use, at least in certain contexts. Paul’s collection embodies this solution. I noted above Bede’s stance on the anhypostatos/enhypostatos problem and yet his tendency to attribute specific actions to one nature or the other: There is a single personality of God the Word, within which the personality of the man Jesus Christ subsists. This personal unity is what brings together the actions of either nature and allows them to act in concert. For all of these reasons, it seems unnecessary to conclude with Herren that Paul was sympathetic to Monophysitism. Moreover, the easy confidence with which Origen and Maximus II attribute divine actions to the human nature and human actions to the divine would have been another strike against Adoptionism, whose advocates argued it was improper to speak in this way.73 The sermons of Maximus II contain formulations that also seem less careful than those of Gregory and, especially, Bede. For example, in PD I:21, De natale Domini (GPD I:20), Maximus II, Homilia 11 (PL, 57:244C–248A), he describes Mary giving birth ‘to her Creator’, without mentioning the complete human nature of the Word. Jesus is called ‘divina progenies’ (a divine child), born through ‘divina nativitas’ (a divine nativity) (PL, 57:245B). This is language that could make a prickly theo­logian uncomfortable. But in PD I:22, De natale Domini (GPD I:21), Maximus II, Homilia 10, the same author shows his awareness of this point in a sermon appointed for the same time (PL, 57:241B–244C): ‘Itaque non bis natus est Deus, sed ex duabus nativitatibus, id est Dei, et hominis seipsum Unigenitus Patris, atque sese hominem unum esse voluit Deum’ (God was not born twice, but the Only-begotten of the Father was himself from two nativities, that is, of God and of man, and he himself willed to become one God-Man). He also includes a variety of near Leonine formulae in the same sermon (PL, 57:243A): ‘Ita Verbum caro factum est: non ut Deus vacuaretur in hominem, sed ut homo glorificaretur in Deum’ (The Word was made flesh in this way: not that God was emptied into a human, but that the human was glorified in God). At the same time, in the pp. 117–18. M. F. Wiles refers to it as ‘two-nature’ exegesis in The Spiritual Gospel. See also Behr, The Nicene Faith, i, 208–15.  71 Even though Cyril of Alexandria practiced partitive exegesis in his Commentary on John, he would later declare it out of bounds in certain respects in Epistle 17.8. See Quasten, Patro­logy, iii, 39.  72 Quasten, Patro­logy, iii, 288.  73 Pelikan, The Growth of Medi­eval Theo­logy, pp. 56–57.

o pt i ma d ece rpe ns

very same sermon where he was somewhat more careful in his theo­logical formulations, the author does little to ward off Adoptionism (unlike Bede). He simply asserts (PL, 57:241): ‘Hodie per hominem Filius Dei ingressus est mundum’ (Today the Son of God has entered the world through a human). What we have is an author who is well aware of just how far he can push theo­logical boundaries. He balances exceedingly careful statements with ones that, interpreted in isolation, could sound heretical. Moreover, many of these moments appear to come in the midst of the author’s pursuit of rhetorical parallelism or contrast. He refers to Christ as a ‘divine child’ in order to highlight the uniqueness of his birth as ‘man’ but not ‘from man’, as ‘flesh from flesh’ from ‘a mortal woman’, yet not by ‘human conception’ (PL, 57:245B). In other words, theo­logical precision plays second fiddle to rhetorical parallelism, at least momentarily. Maximus II is careful to reign himself back in, however, reasserting himself in Leonine phrases, like that mentioned above or in similar statements, such as he was ‘beginning to be what he was not, but not ceasing to be what he was’ in PD I:25 De natale Domini (GPD I:23a), Homilia 14 (PL, 57:251C). The author is also certain that one cannot ‘investigate how God passed into a human or a human into God’ in PD I:22 De natale Domini (GPD I:21), Homilia 10 (PL, 57:242B). This epistemo­logical humility is a continuing theme in his sermons, as I noted above regarding his Trinitarian theo­logy. He wants his audience to stop speculating about the interaction of the divine and human in Christ, for it is incomprehensible. Believe in the humanity and divinity, but go no further. He inveighs against ‘the conjectures of fleshly disputation’ in PD I:23, Item cuius supra de Natale Domini (GPD I:22), Maximus II, Homilia 12 (PL, 57:248A). He specifically commends contemplating Christ’s humility and majesty as ‘the mystery of salvation’ in PD I:86, De Quadragesima (GPD I:82), Homilia 44 (PL, 57:326C). He states, with regard to the Incarnation, that ‘Every creature is astounded at such a great miracle’ in PD I:25, De natale Domini (GPD I:23a), Homilia 14 (PL, 57:252C). He also identifies disputes about the Incarnation with the confusion regarding Christ’s divinity and humanity, as it was experienced by the devil, the Jews, and even John the Baptist, before Christ reassured him.74 When these various Christo­logical strands are taken together, I feel confident saying that Paul’s homiliary usually presents a quite disciplined expression of Western Chalcedonian doctrine, dominated as it is by the writings of Gregory, Bede, and Leo. But there are some homilies that buck this trend: the homilies of Origen and Maximus II. I do not believe that Paul was simply mistaken or confused in his inclusion of these writings. It is a strategy commended by the documents of the Council of Chalcedon and formative  74 This is a repeated theme. See PD I:49, Item unde supra (GPD I:45), Maximus II, Homilia 23; PD I:57, Item cuius supra (GPD I:53), Maximus II, Homilia 29; PD I:58, Item eiusdem de eodem die (GPD I:54), Maximus II, Homilia 34; PD I:59, Item eiusdem de eodem die (GPD I:55), Maximus II, Homilia 35; PD I:84, De Quadragesima (GPD I:80), Maximus II, Homilia 37.

187

1 88

c ha p te r 5

theo­logians in the Christian tradition. Also, pace Herren, there was nothing particularly unorthodox in Origen’s writing, at least as it found expression in Paul’s homiliary. Similarly, the sermons of Maximus II are marked by a careful balancing act: bold, rhetorically driven statements, backed up by a careful Christo­logical exposition at other times, as well as a polemic against overly tidy or speculative accounts of the interaction between Christ’s humanity and divinity. The potential backdrop of the Adoptionist controversies is compelling here. Precisely how the readers of Paul’s homiliary received all of these strands, of course, is beyond the limits of my investigation. There is no doubt, however, that he provided a rich and varied array of material for Christo­logical reflection, a much greater feast of theo­logical material than Charlemagne might even have hoped for.

5.8. Preparing for the End: Eschato­logy a Constant Theme The homilies and sermons in the homiliary of Paul the Deacon frequently refer to ‘eschato­logy’ (the last things): the end of the world, the resurrection, and the judgement of the living and the dead. As with the Trinity and Christo­logy, the last things are mentioned so often that my exploration shall be cursory. Appeal to impending judgement, to the reality of the resurrection, or to eternal rewards and punishments is an incredibly common feature here, as in many Carolingian sermons and collections.75 5.8.1. Gregory the Great on the Impending Last Judgement

The homilies of Gregory the Great are perhaps the most insistently eschato­ logical. The most direct text is PD I:3, Ebdomada III ante Natalem Domini (GPD I:3), Gregory, Homelia I.3. It comments on Luke 21. 25–33 (‘And there shall be signs in the sun and in the moon and in the stars, and upon the earth distress of nations’). Gregory assures his audience that ‘We see some of these things already coming to pass, and dread that the rest are soon to follow’ (15). He believes that signs of the end had increased in his time, noting wars and disasters. The only signs yet to come are those ‘in the sun and moon and stars’ and those ‘of sea and waves’ (16). But he assures his audience ‘that these too are not far off ’, given certain signs observed ‘in the air’, such as flashes in the sky before attacks from unidentified ‘pagans’ (16). All these signs, he says, announce ‘the coming of the severe Judge […] to demand of us an exact account of all the things our unseen Creator patiently tolerates’ (16). The signs are meant to prevent Christians from growing ‘lax’ and to keep watch over their behaviour. But Gregory insists also that these signs are a consolation for the elect. The world may fear the coming of the Judge, but

 75 Amos, ‘The Origin and Nature of the Carolingian Sermon’, pp. 319–22.

o pt i ma d ece rpe ns

Those who love God are ordered to rejoice and be merry at the world’s end. They will soon find him whom they love, while what they have not loved is passing away. It should be far from the hearts of all the faithful who long to see God to grieve over the disasters of a world they know these very disasters are to end. (17) Gregory peppers many of his other homilies with stories meant to display that the end of the world is nigh or that God’s judgement far worse than any current natural disaster or human catastrophe. PD II:116, In natale plurimorum martyrum (GPD II:116), Homily II.35, contains the tale of Stephen, abbot of a monastery in Rieti. It begins well, noting how virtuous Stephen was, but it notes how those who were gathered around his body at death were frightened by a vision of a great number of angels and by the realization that ‘the holy soul was departing’. Gregory’s lesson? Consider, my friends, how almighty God may frighten us when he comes as a severe judge, if he so frightened those standing there when he came to bring a gracious reward. Consider the fear he can cause when we will be able to see him, if he so shattered the minds of those who were present, even when he could not be seen. (308–09) Similar tales of visions and extraordinary miracles occur in other homilies as well.76 This point is significant, given recent studies on anxious stargazing, interpretation of divine portents, fear of divine judgement, and eschato­logical expectation at Carolingian courts.77 A sense of eschato­logical urgency and the meaning of portents did not appear out of nowhere. There was inspiration for such searching (and soul-searching); it was in sections of Paul’s homiliary, not least the homilies of Gregory. 5.8.2. The Resurrection of the Dead: Flesh and Hope

The majority of the sermons on the resurrection of the dead are from Gregory and Bede, assigned for the Vigil of Easter, as well as the week following it. Throughout, they dwell on the characteristics of the risen body of Jesus Christ and about how his resurrection provides a glimpse of the eternal reward of faithful Christians. Some similar thoughts are present in other authors, however. PD II:7, In secunda Feria Paschalis (GPD II:7), Maximus II, Homilia 29 (PL, 57:591A–594C),  76 PD I:52, In Epiphania Domini (GPD I:48), Gregory, Homelia I.10; PD I:73, In Septuagesima (GPD I:69), Gregory, Homelia I.19; PD II:40, Dominica IV post Pentecosten (GPD II:38), Gregory, Homelia II.36; PD II:111, In Natale unius martyris (GPD II:112), Gregory, Homelia II.37; PD II:117, In festiuitate martyrum (GPD II:118), Gregory, Homelia II.32.  77 See, e.g. Einhard, Vita Karoli 32; Dutton, The Politics of Dreaming in the Carolingian Empire, pp. 81–84, 87–91; Dutton, Charlemagne’s Mustache and other Cultural Clusters of a Dark Age, pp. 93–127; Nelson, ‘Was Charlemagne’s Court a Courtly Society?’, pp. 49–50; de Jong, The Penitential State, pp. 39–40, 67, 79–80, 82, 136, 153–57; Palmer, The Apocalypse in the Early Middle Ages, pp. 138–44, 154–55, 160–63, 176–84.

189

1 90

c ha p te r 5

bases Christian joy in Christ’s resurrection precisely because all are raised in him; eternal life with God, even in heaven, has already begun. Even before the resurrection of their own bodies, Christians may know their own flesh and blood is reigning in heaven. ‘Est enim in illo Christi homine uniuscujusque nostrum carnis et sanguinis portio: ubi ergo portio mea regnat, regnare me credo; ubi dominatur sanguis meus, me sentio dominari; ubi glorificatur caro mea, me gloriosum esse cognosco’ (PL, 57:593B; Part of the flesh and blood of each of us is in that humanity of Christ. Where part of me reigns, I believe I reign. Where my blood rules, I see that I rule; where my flesh is glorified, I know that I am glorious). Most of Leo the Great’s sermons on Easter are absent from Paul’s collection, but some of his texts on the Ascension are included, in which he speaks of the significance of the resurrection appearances of Jesus. In PD II:26, De Ascensa Domini (GPD II:26), Leo, Tractatus 73, he states that Christ appeared multiple times over the course of forty days, in order to show his disciples that he had truly risen, but he invites them to touch him and his scars, that ‘they might comprehend that the nature which had been lain in the sepulchre was to sit on God the Father’s throne’ (497–98). In this, human nature is exalted ‘above the dignity of all heavenly creatures’ (497–98). Leo is careful to assert that this ascended flesh is the same body, the same human nature that was born of Mary and that will return at the last judgement: PD II:27, Item et supra (GPD II:27), Leo, Tractatus 74 (500, 502). Gregory, meanwhile, roots his reflections in various features of the Gospel texts assigned for Easter. Incidental narrative features are thought to be pregnant with meaning. In PD II:11 Feria IV Paschalis (GPD II:11), Homelia II.24, Gregory comments on the story of the miraculous catch of fish, and he draws significance from the statement that ‘Jesus stood on the shore’, while his disciples were fishing on the sea. ‘What does the sea indicate but the present age, which is disturbed by the uproar of circumstances and the commotion of this perishable life? What does the solidity of the shore signify but the uninterrupted continuance of eternal peace?’ (180). Christ had ‘already passed beyond his perishable body’ into ‘his immortal body’, which differed in important ways from the sort of body possessed by his disciples. Gregory is concerned, though, to show that Christ’s transformed body was the same as the one born of the Virgin Mary, even though different in many respects. For Gregory, this reality, continuity, and difference was exhibited most clearly when Christ appeared in the midst of the disciples, despite the doors being locked (John 20. 19–29). This sudden appearance makes ‘a question’ arise in the hearts of those who saw it and hear of it, as Gregory says in PD II:15, Dominica in octabas Paschae (GPD II:15), Homelia II:26. He states that the sudden appearance of Jesus in their midst made the disciples’ faith waver, so Jesus offered his hands and his side for them to touch. By this action he revealed two wonderful, and according to human reason quite contradictory, things. He showed them that after his resurrection his

o pt i ma d ece rpe ns

body was both incorruptible and yet could be touched […]. By showing us that it is incorruptible he would urge us on toward our reward, and by offering it as touchable he would dispose us towards faith. He manifested himself as both incorruptible and touchable, truly to show us that his body after his resurrection was of the same nature as ours but of a different sort of glory. (201) Gregory points out how other miracles of the resurrection and of daily life are meant to provide assurance to those of wavering faith as well. In PD II:5, Sequentia de sancto paschae (GPD II:5), Homelia II:21, he singles out how Matthew 27. 52 mentions that some were raised from the dead at the death of Christ. The event was ‘to prevent our saying that no one should expect in his own case what the God-man shows in his body’ (161). The joint resurrection of Christ and some early saints is meant as a pledge for those living near the end of time. They could expect to have their own bodies reconstituted, yet transformed, as Christ’s was. Gregory also believes that daily and seasonal events should assure Christians that God can raise them from the dead at the end. In PD II:15, Dominica in octabas Paschae (GPD II:15), Homelia II.26, Gregory mentions that some of his congregation had doubts that God could restore a decayed body to life. But he argues that creation itself was a far greater miracle: to create is harder than to recreate. Moreover, he states that ‘God’s daily miracles have become commonplace through their constant repetition’, dwelling particularly on the miracle of great trees growing from small seeds, which in turn produce more seeds and trees (cf. i Cor. 15:35–49). ‘Why then is it therefore wonderful if he who daily restores from a small seed, the wood, fruit, and leaves in the great mass of a tree, produces bones, nerves, flesh, and hair from dust?’ (21). A number of Bede’s reflections are similar to Gregory’s, although he explores certain features of the resurrection body at greater length. An excellent example of this fact is PD II:10, Item in Feria III Paschalis (GPD II:10), Bede, Homelia II.9. He notes that Christ’s resurrection is a model: he appeared to his disciples ‘to show to us without any kind of ambiguity what kind of risen body we too are to hope for’ (82). He emphasizes that Christ’s body was real, like that of other humans, and that it could be touched and appeared the same (82). But he also insists that it had been changed. The change is shown in his escape from the tomb while it was still closed: it is because Christ’s body had become incorruptible and immortal that he could pass through normal material (81).78 Bede takes some time to elaborate on peculiar features of resurrection bodies as well, such as an ability to consume food without having a need to eat. Bede identifies as ‘the stupid heresy of the followers of Cerinthus’ (84) any belief that the bodies of the saints will require food after the general

 78 See also PD II:2, In Vigiliis Paschae (GPD II:2), Bede, Homelia II.7 (63).

191

1 92

c ha p te r 5

resurrection. He also insists: ‘Our bodies too, after their resurrection, will be endowed with heavenly glory, and will have the greatest facility to do whatever they wish, and to go wherever they please’ (85). Also like Gregory, Bede emphasizes that the places and times Christ appeared were significant. PD II:2, In Vigiliis Paschae (GPD II:2), Bede, Homelia II.7 (64), draws on the etymo­logical meaning of Galilee as ‘a crossing over accomplished’ to say that Christ’s resurrection appearance there was to demonstrate his victory and new power, not only by visible appearance, but also by location. PD II:13, Item in Feria VI Paschalis (GPD II:13), Bede, Homelia II.8 (69), states that Christ appeared on a mount during the giving of the Great Commission to show he had clothed his body ‘with heavenly power after it had been raised above everything earthly’. 5.8.3. Eschato­logy in PD and the Requirements of Admonitio Generalis

Paul’s collection pointed towards the impending last judgement, noting its terrifying character and even the appearance of divine signs. However, when speaking of the resurrection, the sermons and homilies Paul included commonly dwell on joy, and they spend considerable time exploring the continuities and discontinuities in Christ’s body, before and after his resurrection: it is the same body, yet drastically transformed. Part of the reason for this concern may be that the specific features of this body will be shared by all Christians: they will be immortal and incorruptible, able to go where they please, and freed from the normal needs of the body, such as eating, even though they are, in important ways, the same bodies. Once again, we can see how the materials in Paul’s collection clearly address the topics that were of concern to Charlemagne and the stipulations of Admonitio Generalis, but also explore a much greater range of topics.

5.9. Ethics and Imitation The Admonitio Generalis, like many other texts of the Carolingian period, was not concerned with doctrinal orthodoxy alone, but also with the ethical behaviour of clerical and lay members of the Church. Such concern is not limited to the Admonitio; a whole range of ethical literature was produced in the period.79 Several episcopal statutes of the period also exhort preachers to aim at reforming the character of their congregations. Even if preachers cannot engage in proper exegesis of Scripture, they could at least exhort their audience to pursue virtue and avoid vice, as Theodulf of Orléans stipulated.80

 79 See McKitterick, The Frankish Church and the Carolingian Reforms, pp. 155–83; Stone, Morality and Masculinity in the Carolingian Empire.  80 Theodulf of Orléans, Capitula 1, c. XXVIII, ed. by Brommer, p. 125: ‘Hortamur vos paratos esse ad docendas plebes. Qui scriptura scit, praedicet scripturas; qui vero nescit, saltim hoc, quod

o pt i ma d ece rpe ns

Thus, for a period anxious about morality, could Paul’s homiliary provide material for ethical reflection or homiletic inspiration for preachers anxious to exhort their congregations? I believe it did, but in a way that may be surprising. As Thomas Amos has said of Carolingian sermons in general, basic injunctions regarding virtues and vices fill the pages of Paul’s homiliary, most often in the concluding perorations of individual sermons and homilies.81 Some of these exhortations are little more than virtue or vice lists, as one can find in the Admonitio Generalis and in other Carolingian texts (or, indeed, the New Testament itself). The spectre of impending judgement is also raised as a motivating factor for proper behaviour. But ethical exhortation in Paul’s homiliary is not limited to these rather simplistic methods. Instead, Paul’s collection contains an overwhelming number of entries devoted to offering moral examples. Some of these examples are fairly straightforward, as I noted earlier. Abraham is an example of faith. David shows kings how best to win military victory: by calling on God. Absalom’s bitter end warns royal sons against rebellion or killing their fathers and brothers. The prophet Jeremiah exhibits patience in the midst of a rebellious nation. Other examples are more abstract. PD I:52, In Epiphania Domini (GPD I:48), Gregory, Homelia I.10, commends the imitation of the ten virgins of Jesus’s parable (Matthew 25. 1–13): five were wise in bringing extra oil for their lamps and five were foolish in leaving oil behind. We may imitate the wise, according to Gregory, by ‘keeping the brightness of glory’ inside and declining to receive praise, rather than asking for it from others (70). PD II:53, De natali beatissimorum Petri et Pauli (GPD II:52), Bede, Homelia I.20, urges that Christians imitate the Apostle Peter’s character, not only by confessing Christ in the way he had and partaking of his stability of mind, but also by clinging to the rock (petra, i.e. Christ; cf. i Cor. 10. 4) from which Peter had received his name (Petrus), specifically, by partaking of the sacraments and observing God’s commands (200–201).82 There is, moreover, a clear position taken on the purpose of such moral examples. God himself has sown stories in Scripture that provide positive and negative paradigms, according to Gregory the Great. After speaking of the example of Mary Magdalene, Gregory says: What ought we to see in this, my friends, except the boundless mercy of our Creator? He has put before us, as if for signs and examples of repentance, those he brought to life through repentance after a fall. I look at Peter, at the thief, at Zacchaeus, at Mary, and I see in them nothing else

notissimum est, plebibus dicat: “Ut declinant a malo et faciant bonum…” (Ps. 33. 15–17). Nullus ergo se excusare potent, quod non habeat linguam, unde possit aliquem aedificare.’  81 Amos, ‘The Origin and Nature of the Carolingian Sermon’, p. 313.  82 Cf. Gregory, Homelia 33, and Bede, Homelia I.16, not included in Paul’s collection.

193

1 94

c ha p te r 5

but examples put before our eyes […] at every turn [are] those whom we ought to imitate. God provides at every turn examples of his mercy.83 PD II:29, Dominica post Ascensa Domini (GPD II:29), Bede, Homelia II.16 (161–62) puts it even more emphatically: We must model our lives and behaviour carefully after [the apostles’] example, for the perfect instruction for our lives is always to imitate the actions of the primitive Church, and to keep up to the end that design of the spiritual edifice which was clearly proposed to the apostles themselves as the foundation of the faith. We must not doubt that we shall in the future reach the rewards of those in whose footsteps we now follow. And, indeed, my brothers, even in the present we carry out a most beautiful sketch of the future happiness […]. Let us then persevere in the teaching of the saints, namely by learning from them, and let us carry out in our deeds what they teach. Bede and Gregory drew on a long tradition, going back to statements of the Apostle Paul regarding the purpose of Scripture (Rom. 15. 4; i Cor. 10. 6–11; ii Tim. 3. 16). Ultimately, they both point towards the necessity of imitating the actions and even the narrative ‘shape’ of all sorts of Scriptural figures.84 As I noted above, this practice implies attentive concern to the literal meaning of Scriptural narratives and the obvious examples they provide. But this practice of biblical reading finds its zenith in specific techniques of allegorical exegesis, applied to all manner of Old and New Testament texts. Readers of Paul’s homiliary are not only to imitate Peter, Paul, Mary, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and even Jesus Christ in incredibly obvious ways. They are also to pattern themselves on more obscure, mysterious figurae and typi discerned in these biblical stories and others. They must model their ethical action on the sacrifices of the Old Testament, Bede says, engulfing their minds with ‘the flame of true love’; they must allow their lives to take on the shape of Solomon’s Temple, becoming ‘squared stones’ of ‘settled character and unalterable mind’.85 Bede’s language about the latter, especially, coheres well with his statements about imitating Peter. Imitating these various figures, including the apostles, is part of drawing near to Christ the Rock and being built into his Temple, his Body. This is true even if the imitation appears indirect, as Gregory argues.86 Members of the Church must learn to see themselves as acting out biblical

 83 PD II:12, Feria V Paschalis (GPD II:12), Gregory, Homelia II.25 (198–99).  84 I have explored this issue at greater length in ‘Patristic Allegorical Preaching as a Mimetic Techno­logy’. Cf. Dawson, Christian Figural Reading and the Fashioning of Identity.  85 Respectively, PD II:125, In dedicatione Ecclesiae (GPD II:126), Bede, Homelia II.24 (251); PD II:124, In dedicatione Ecclesiae (GPD II:125), Bede, Homelia II.25 (262–63).  86 PD II:28, In Ascensione Domini (GPD II:28), Gregory, Homelia II.29 (229): ‘Holy Church does daily in a spiritual way what it did at one time materially through the apostles and others’.

o pt i ma d ece rpe ns

stories in particular ways: Whenever they find someone worthy of emulation, they must realize they encounter ‘watchmen who guard the city’ of the Lord (Song of Songs 3. 1–4), directing them towards Jesus by their writings.87 Whenever they suffer tribulation for the truth without forsaking their joy, they eat broiled fish and honeycomb with the risen Christ (Luke 24. 42); indeed they are eaten by him and become his body.88 The distinction between these two approaches to ethics and biblical interpretation — the literal and allegorical — is compared by Bede to the difference between water and wine: one is indeed necessary to cleanse and refresh the soul, but the other inebriates and transforms it. It is like the Feeding of the Five Thousand: it begins with a meagre meal, yet ends with an abundant feast. Through commending this method of biblical interpretation, focused on allegorical imitation, Paul’s homiliary opened up all sorts of new vistas for ethical exhortation in the Carolingian era and beyond. Examinations of the role of the Bible and of ethics in the eighth and ninth centuries have not taken on the complexity of this particular vision. For reasons of space, Rachel Stone’s Morality and Masculinity in the Carolingian Empire had to leave out consideration of sermons, but she noted the exceedingly varied nature of ethical exhortation in ‘lay mirrors’ of the period. The material she surveyed also had different emphases than Paul’s homiliary.89 Other studies, noting the importance of exegesis and correctio to Carolingian rulers and elites, rarely go into detail on the interaction of biblical interpretation, ethics, and allegory.90 Yet a complex, allegorical method of exhortation is one of the predominant features of Paul’s homiliary.

5.10. Specific Ethical Practices: Fasting, Confession, Almsgiving, Care for the Dead The Admonitio Generalis had commended specific virtues to follow, such as love of God and neighbour, kindness, and chastity. But it also named specific practices to follow, like almsgiving and confession. Many of the sermons in the homiliary mention these practices in passing, but I would like to note the presence of a number of sermons that are dedicated specifically to commending such practices, though I do not have the space to explore their contents here. Almsgiving • PD II:89, Dominica II post sancti Angeli (GPD II:91), ‘John Chrysostom’, Sermo 17 • See also PD I:14, Dicendus ante natalem Domini (GPD I:14), Maximus, Sermo 60  87 PD II:12, Feria V Paschalis (GPD II:12), Gregory, Homelia II.25 (189).  88 PD II:11, Feria IV Paschalis (GPD II:11), Gregory, Homelia II.24 (184).  89 Stone, Morality and Masculinity in the Carolingian Empire, pp. 32, 311–16.  90 De Jong, ‘Exegesis for an Empress’, pp. 84–95, being a notable exception.

195

1 96

c ha p te r 5

Confession of sin and repentance

• PD I:93, Dominica II in Quadragesima de confessione peccati (GPD I:89), ‘John Chrysostom’, Sermo 11 • PD I:103, Feria II (GPD I:99), Bede, Homelia II.4 Fasting

• PD I:79, De Quadragesima (GPD I:75), Maximus, Sermo 66 • PD II:17, In letania maiore de ieiunio Nineuitarum (GPD II:17), Maximus, Sermo 81 • PD II:18, In Letania maiore, de ieiunio (GPD II:18), Ps-Augustine, Sermo 175 • PD II:129, In letania quando uolueris, de ieiunio Nineuitarum (GPD II:130), ‘John Chrysostom’, Sermo 20 • PD II:132, In ieiunio decimi mensis (GPD II:133), Leo, Tractatus 12 • PD II:133, Item alius sermo. De eodem ieiunio (GPD II:134), Leo, Tractatus 18 Prayer

• PD II:19, Item in letania maiore (GPD II:19), Bede, In Lucae euangelium expositio III.11 • PD II:24, Dominica IV post octauas Paschae (GPD II:24), Bede, Homelia II.12 • Many of the sermons on fasting also mention prayer Proper care for the dead

• PD II:130, In die depositionis anniuersario cuius uolueris defuncti fidelis (GPD II:131), Augustine, Enchiridion ad Laurentium, 109–11 • PD II:131, Unde supra (GPD II:132), Augustine, Enchiridion ad Laurentium, 84–93

5.11. Conclusion I started this chapter by noting that Charlemagne had commissioned the homiliary of Paul the Deacon in order to obtain the most eloquent readings of the orthodox Fathers. He declared the readings Paul gathered to be ‘useful’, even ‘the best’ of the tradition. I have now given a broad survey of the readings. The collection focuses on Gospel exegesis and doctrinal teaching, drawn predominantly from the works of Gregory, Bede, Maximus II, and Leo. Yet Paul drew together texts that modelled a more holistic approach to Holy Scripture: specific sermons and homilies interpret the Psalms and other passages from Old Testament Scripture; and several homilies, especially those of Bede, give a theo­logical account of the relationship between the

o pt i ma d ece rpe ns

Old and New Testaments and the particular benefits to be gained from the allegorical exegesis of Scripture. The doctrinal content of Paul’s collection is consonant with Charlemagne’s concerns. It addresses four topics identified in Admonitio Generalis, c. 82 as vital topics to him, to Carolingian bishops, and, ideally, to their priests as well. These four topics were also mentioned by Alcuin in his letter on educating the Avars: Trinity, Christo­logy, eschato­logy, ethics. Paul’s homiliary provides a great deal of material on these areas of Christian doctrine. It advances a particularly Western understanding of the Trinity, especially regarding the filioque and the Holy Spirit as the unity between the Father and the Son. This is true even though the homiliary also contains simpler material for instructing baptismal candidates. The homiliary is strongly, yet almost casually, Chalcedonian in its Christo­logy, with materials taking a position on a particular difficulty or crux regarding the anhypostatos/enhypostatos physis question. This remains true even as material written before Chalcedon is included in the collection. Language regarding impending judgement, divine signs, and fear is quite common as well, although I have noted that the texts of PD also have a strong focus on the resurrected body of Christ as the model for the future rewards of the saints. Finally, I have shown that the homiliary takes a varied and sophisticated approach to ethical exhortation, especially by providing numerous moral exemplars; indeed, the collection forwards a whole theory regarding how exempla provide the strongest impetus to ethical behaviour. What I hope this shows is that Paul’s homiliary met the demands of a text like the Admonitio Generalis. As such, it could have been an extremely effective tool in the hands of theo­logians, preachers, and teachers alike. Concerns expressed in the past that Paul’s homiliary did not provide such material are empty. But the homiliary also exceeds the expectations of the Admonitio. It ventures further into the complexity of patristic theo­logy. Whether this would have diminished its usefulness to the ‘average’ priest, as some have contended, is another question. I have my doubts that it is useful to summon such a vague spectre: it is far too malleable.91 But perhaps we can glimpse why Charlemagne was filled with pride upon receiving Paul’s homiliary. It was no ordinary collection. Paul had reached far into the depths of the tradition, striving to bring forth the best. For Charlemagne and Paul, the homiliary could well serve its intended purpose: to beautify the liturgical practices and theo­logical understanding of the churches in which it was used. How the churches of Charlemagne’s kingdoms responded to the homiliary is the topic of my final chapter.

 91 See Gatch, Preaching and Theo­logy in Anglo-Saxon England, pp. 28–34; Smetana, ‘Ælfric and the Early Medi­eval Homiliary’, pp. 203–04; Hill, ‘Translating the Tradition’, p. 253.

197

Chapter 6

Tradimus The Use of Paul’s Homiliary Until a definitive edition of this homiliary brings together the various manu­scripts containing it, the most that can be said is that individual manu­scripts might have been used for popular preaching. — Thomas Amos1 The question of how Paul’s homiliary was used has prompted significant debate over the past five centuries. A persistent thought since the nineteenth century is that a study of the text’s earliest manu­scripts would put scholarly conclusions on firmer ground. This chapter is dedicated to addressing this issue, but it is necessary to include an initial note of caution. Friedrich Wiegand, Cyril Smetana, Thomas Amos, and others noted their desire for an edition of the collection or for some survey of its manu­scripts, but it is not clear to me how they thought an edition or survey would help settle questions about use.2 A few examples should suffice to highlight the complexity of this topic. First, an edition of the original version might only tell us what Paul and Charlemagne hoped others would do with their text, not what was actually done. The Epistola Generalis, for example, said that the homiliary provided eloquent, orthodox readings for the Night Office; Paul’s dedicatory verse mentions a similar hope. But only six Carolingian witnesses transmitted these texts; we cannot know how many communities knew they were using or copying Paul’s text; we cannot even assume that Paul’s preface was consulted by every user of the homiliaries that transmitted it, nor that anyone felt constrained by it. Charlemagne and Paul may have intended the homiliary to be used in a particular way, but others could have used it for all sorts of purposes. Second, an edition (or a study like this one) would mostly settle which texts were included in Paul’s homiliary, not tell us how they were used, without further evaluation. However, while considering the character of Carolingian homiliaries, various scholars have suggested criteria for determining whether particular collections were used for preaching.3 ‘In the area of popular preaching,  1 Amos, ‘The Origin and Nature of the Carolingian Sermon’, p. 197.  2 E.g. Amos, ‘The Origin and Nature of the Carolingian Sermon’. Also Ranke, ‘Zur Geschichte des Homiliariums Karl’s des Grossen’; DHK, pp. 4–11; Smetana, ‘Ælfric and the Early Medi­ eval Homiliary’, p. 165; Smetana, ‘Paul the Deacon’s Patristic Antho­logy’, pp. 75–76.  3 E.g. McKitterick, The Frankish Church and the Carolingian Reforms, pp. 97–98, 104; Gatch, Preaching and Theo­logy in Anglo-Saxon England, pp. 28–34; Amos, ‘The Origin and Nature of the Carolingian Sermon’, pp. 9–10, 193–200.

200

c ha p te r 6

content alone can provide the basis of identification’, according to Thomas Amos.4 James McCune has argued that true preaching collections contain ‘simple Latin’ and touch on ‘themes prescribed by [Carolingian] legislation’.5 This way of focusing on content is a problematic approach, however, if deployed without caution. It has proved contentious in the past and led to an impasse among scholars. What counts as simple? The example of Ælfric is instructive. Amos thought that lengthy exegesis would not appear in popular preaching.6 Similarly, Smetana expressed surprise that Ælfric used ‘long, involved allegorical exegesis’ from Paul’s homiliary, as opposed to the brief sermons of Maximus and Leo.7 This shows the difficulty. In response, Joyce Hill and Rosamond McKitterick noted that it is the exegesis that Ælfric wanted, and such historical analogies are the primary means for considering how a text like Paul’s might be used.8 As much as possible, our evaluation must be based on contemporary assessments, not on our own evaluations. In this vein, I argued in the last chapter that Paul’s text contains homiletic material on topics that the Admonitio Generalis and other reform-minded texts considered suitable for popular preaching. It could have been used for preaching. But we need a little more evidence to work with to show that it was so used. A similar, but more complicated, issue arises regarding individual manu­ scripts and evidence, however: they rarely contain unambiguous evidence of how they were used. If a particular homiliary was used for preaching, how would we know? Size? Glosses? Annotations? Moreover, such features might only tell us about discrete moments in a manu­script’s history, even though these texts were used and reused in successive Carolingian generations. A manu­script’s dimensions might reveal the purpose for its initial creation, but not how it was used later. Annotations might show how a manu­script was used by one individual, but such interventions do not determine a text’s use in a larger community over a lengthy period of ownership. The foregoing discussion might suggest I have few conclusions I wish to venture about the use of Paul’s homiliary in the Carolingian period. This is not true. I am, however, aware of the limitations of the evidence. My research has not furnished an exhaustive set of conclusions about the use of the collection throughout the Carolingian Empire. It has revealed many specific uses in discrete locations. Some of these uses are common enough to allow speculation about trends, but many are unique.  4  5  6  7

Amos, ‘The Origin and Nature of the Carolingian Sermon’, p. 199. McCune, ‘The Preacher’s Audience’, p. 310. Amos, ‘The Origin and Nature of the Carolingian Sermon’, p. 199. Smetana, ‘Ælfric and the Early Medi­eval Homiliary’, pp. 203–04. He also suggested a potential manu­script parallel to Ælfric’s copy: BLB, MS Aug. perg. 37 (Reichenau, s. x).  8 Hill, ‘Translating the Tradition’, p. 253; McKitterick, The Frankish Church and the Carolingian Reforms, pp. 86–87.

TRADIMUS

6.1. Crafting New Collections The most obvious place to begin is with the many witnesses to Paul’s homiliary, whose diversity testifies to the varied uses of Paul’s homiliary. At the most basic level, the collection was used as a source or model for new homiliaries. It was a collection that inspired new collections. In this section, I shall provide brief, analytical comments on the various kinds of extant Carolingian witnesses and on some of the most common features of these new collections, as well as what their different features might tell us about the potential intentions of their compilers. The recrafting of patristic collections may seem a bloodless topic. It is hardly that. These homiliaries were created in an age self-consciously concerned with defining, retrieving, and putting to use the patristic tradition in concrete, practical ways.9 The claim in the Epistola Generalis that Paul’s homiliary represented ‘the best’ and also ‘useful’ material from the Church’s inheritance would not go unnoticed, nor would its particular arrangement of patristic authorities. Which authors mattered? Was it Paul’s distinct blend? Moreover, the manu­scripts reveal attempts at creating new genres of texts, with different functions within the liturgy or, more generally, within sacred time or the working out of Christian ministry and community life. The fashioning of an abbreviated witness could speak of a community’s poverty, ‘taste’, or unique practices, while a lavishly decorated, expansive witness testifies to another’s wealth of material resources, texts, and talent. In this way, new homiliaries stand at the centre of community formation and identity.

6.2. Amplified Homiliaries One of the largest categories of new collections is expanded or amplified homiliaries: that is, new collections that used the homiliary as a starting point, supplementing or amplifying it with further material. 6.2.1. More of Paul’s ‘Canon’ of Fathers

A great variety of institutions created new homiliaries that brought in further patristic texts, but primarily used the same authors that Paul had presented in his original collection. Two homiliaries from the same unknown centre, BLB, MS Aug. perg. 14 and 15 (SW Germany, s. ix1/2), mostly hold more material from Bede, Gregory, and Leo. There are a few new entries from Augustine and Jerome, and the compiler added in significant entries from Eusebius Gallicanus’s Sermones, albeit only in BLB, MS Aug. perg. 15.10  9 Brown, ‘The Carolingian Renaissance’, pp. 17–26; McKitterick, Charlemagne, pp. 311–15; van Rhijn, Shepherds of the Lord, pp. 58–63, 84–85, 107–10, 156.  10 When I speak of ‘the compiler’ in this chapter, it should always be understood as potentially

201

202

c ha p te r 6

In BLB, MS Aug. perg. 14, these additional entries mostly, but not systematically, provide readings for the ferial days of Lent. In BLB, MS Aug. perg. 15, the additions concentrate around Easter and Pentecost. Generally, it is clear that the compiler of this collection added readings for especially important moments in sacred time, but the uneven addition of material may point to the limited library resources of the community. The actual range of new texts is fairly limited. Meanwhile, some additions may point to lacks. To provide commentary on Luke, the compiler drew on a letter of Jerome and a text attributed to Pseudo-Isidore, which only furnishes material for two days.11 We might expect a compiler to have turned to a full commentary on Luke, by Bede or Ambrose, when it was possible. An entirely different situation prevails elsewhere: other amplified collections contain a huge range of sources, pointing to a great deal of temporal investment and resources. Some time ago, Raymond Étaix analysed a collection created somewhere in Bavaria or Northern Italy.12 The collection is organized around the Gospel texts read during Mass from Septuagesima to Easter, but, unlike Paul’s text, this collection provides readings for Sundays and all ferial days, along with sermons on various topics. In order to do so, the compiler drew on a great variety of authors. Nearly all of Paul’s texts for that period were included, but the compilation also contains new readings from Bede’s Homeliae, his commentaries on Luke and Mark, Augustine’s Tractatus in Iohannem, Jerome’s Commentariorum in Mattheum libri IV, and, interestingly, Chromatius of Aquileia’s rare Tractatus in Matheum. Some readings were drawn from the homiliary of Alan of Farfa, as were two rare sermons of Petronius and a sermon of Pseudo-Caesarius. The differences between this collection and BLB, MSS Aug. perg. 14 and 15 are significant. Its organization is evident, rather than unclear. It draws on many common and rare sources. The compiler must have had access to a significant library or libraries. A comparison of the two collections’ dissemination is similarly revealing. I have discovered one extant, later copy of MSS Aug. perg. 14 and 15.13 Meanwhile, the collection highlighted by Étaix is known by many witnesses in the Carolingian period and later.14 This text’s

 11

 12  13  14

implying ‘compilers’ or even the input of a whole community. Individual crafting of communal texts, without input from others, is likely a rarity. An exegetical entry is included for Feria III of the third week of Lent, commenting on the Parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15. 11–32). The compiler chose Jerome’s Epistula 21, written to Pope Damasus. Concerning Luke 22. 36, the compiler chose De gladio secundum Lucam, unattributed in this text, but sometimes attributed (falsely) to Isidore. Étaix, ‘Un homéliaire quadragésimal du ixe siècle’. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Laud. Misc. 157 (639) (Würzburg, s. xi). Six are known from the eleventh century onwards and listed in Étaix, ‘Un homéliaire quadragésimal du ixe siècle’, pp. 12–13 (repr. pp. 614–15). Four were written in the ninth and tenth centuries and are especially relevant to this study: BSB, Clm 14386 (Bavaria, perhaps Regensburg, s. ix3/3), Fulda, Hessische Landesbibliothek, MS AA 12 (SW Germany, s. ix3/3; Carolingian provenance: donated by Bishop Salomo to St Mary’s Cathedral, Constance),

TRADIMUS

impressive circulation in Bavaria and Italy points to its genesis in an important centre with connections. But there may be further clues. Katharina Bierbrauer has noted that the oldest witness to this collection, BSB, Clm 14386 (s. ix3/3) bears a decorated initial on folio 5v, not unlike the St Gall style. She suggested it was made in Regensburg at the court of Louis the German towards the end of Grimald’s time as archchaplain (c. 860–70). She notes its stylistic similarity to BSB, Clm 29315(3), which Bischoff has connected with Louis’s court.15 Certain features of the latter manu­script point to it being the property of an individual associated with the Carolingian royal family, and Louis had a contemporary reputation for piety and the production of beautiful liturgical texts.16 Its decoration is lavish: texts are surrounded by columns terminated in an interlace style not unlike St Gall’s, save that they are executed in combination of gold, silver, and green like BSB, Clm 14386. BSB, Clm 29315(3) also includes a litany asking for the intercession of various saints (some special to the Carolingian royal family, such as St Petronilla). At least one other prayer asks especially for the preservation of the pope, followed by ‘the imperial master and the army of the Franks’ and for their life and victory;17 only then is there a general prayer for the life and victory of ‘the Christian people’. I could add that the St Gall connection for this homiliary is strengthened by Fulda, Hessische Landesbibliothek, MS AA 12 (SW Germany, s. ix3/3), unknown to Bierbrauer and Étaix, but given by Bishop Salomo III to his cathedral of St Mary in Constance.18 The copy given by Salomo may have been made around the same time as BSB, Clm 14386, yet rested at St Gall for a time, before arriving in Constance. While I note this connection between St Gall and the collection identified by Étaix, there is something else to consider: St Gall appears to have undertaken its own extensive effort at supplementing Paul’s text that differs from this one. Indeed, it is possible to glean far more information about this effort, and I shall explore its features briefly before coming to a conclusion about Bierbrauer’s thesis.

BAV, MS Vat. lat. 1278 (N Italy, s. ixex), and Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, MS 1557 (Mondsee, s. x). The witness now held in Fulda was not known to Étaix, but identified by me. See Katalog, i, 277; Hausmann, Die theo­logischen Handschriften der Hessischen Landesbibliothek Fulda bis zum Jahr 1600, pp. 42–43.  15 Bierbrauer, Die vorkarolingischen und karolingischen Handschriften der Bayerischen Staatsbibliothek, i, 68–69; Bischoff, ‘Bücher am Hofe Ludwigs des Deutschen und die Privatbibliothek des Kanzlers Grimalt’, p. 190. Cf. Hauke, Katalog der lateinischen Fragmente der Bayerischen Staatsbibliothek München, ii, 4–5.  16 Notker, Gesta Karoli 11, trans. by Thorpe, pp. 91–172, at p. 152: ‘Louis the German surpassed all men in his devotion to prayer, in his observance of the fasts and in his care to attend divine service […]. He also covered entire books, which were copied subsequently, with bindings nearly an inch thick made of gold. No churchman could stay in his service or even come into his presence unless he were skilled at reading and chanting’.  17 Fol. 1r: ‘ut domnum ill. imper. et exercitu. francoru. conseruare digneris’.  18 The donation record is on fol. 1r.

203

2 04

c ha p te r 6

As I mentioned in Chapter 4, St Gall began collecting and producing copies of Paul the Deacon’s work at least by the second quarter of the ninth century.19 Their earliest catalogue witnesses to this fact, as do two manu­scripts: Basel, Öffentliche Bibliothek der Universität, MS B.III.2 (s. ix2/4) and CSG 432 (St Gall, s. ix2/4). Even from this early stage, the idea of adapting Paul’s text was present in St Gall. Basel, MS B.III.2 is an odd witness to Paul’s text. It is partly abbreviated: most of Paul’s sermon material is omitted. From Sexagesima onward, however, the text is supplemented with a few additional readings from Jerome’s Commentariorum in Mattheum libri IV, Augustine’s Tractatus in Iohannem and Sermones in Domini monte, and Bede’s Homeliae and Expositio in Marci euangelium. Their inclusion was likely intended to cover Lent’s ferial days, but the work was left unfinished. This collection was supplemented further in the third quarter of the ninth century, perhaps under the supervision of Notker the Stammerer, whose hand appears on p. 118 charting out a plan for additions, which were completed on new quires (now pp. 119–46).20 Even these supplements were only a stopgap, however. A further work of homiliary amplification was undertaken around 850–83, as I noted in Chapter 3.21 Three of the homiliaries from this expansion remain extant: CSG 430, 431, and 434. All four homiliaries follow very similar lines. For the most part, Paul’s homiliary is expanded with further readings from familiar texts like Bede’s Homeliae, Leo’s Tractatus, Augustine’s Tractatus in Iohannem, and Maximus of Turin’s Sermones. But there are also rare readings, especially in CSG 430.22 Is there anything to say about the expansions? Overall, the compilers at St Gall followed a clear programme. The homiliary of Paul the Deacon was amplified with a clear group of recognizable authors: Bede, Leo, and Maximus. A handful of new authors were introduced for reading, but not many. I see little evidence of a thoroughgoing attempt at redefining the patristic canon proffered by Paul: it was lightly supplemented, but (for the most part) Paul’s selection of authorities was honoured. Furthermore, new readings were introduced, but there was no attempt to provide texts for all the ferial days of Lent in the 850–83 expansion, a difference between these homiliaries, the early supplements in Basel, MS B.III.2, and the ‘court’ homiliary.  19 See pp. 140–42. Cf. p. 273.  20 My thanks go to Susan Rankin for confirming this identification at an early stage of research. She has since published some of her findings in ‘Notker bibliothecarius’, exploring Notker’s supervision of the supplementation, correction, and production of various texts.  21 See, pp. 152–55. Cf. pp. 273–75. Two volumes for Advent–Easter (CSG 430 and 431) were produced during the abbacy of Grimald and priory of Hartmut (850–72), and then two volumes again for Easter–Advent during the abbacy of Hartmut through the reign of Charles the Fat (872–83).  22 E.g. Origen’s Commentary on Romans, the letter of Cyril of Alexandria to Nestorius (albeit attributed to Leo), the Revelatio Sancti Stephani, the Gloria martyrum of Gregory of Tours, and the De miraculis beati apostoli Iohannis, copied later in the ninth century from the apocrypha Acta Iohannis. See Acta Iohannis, ed. by Junod and Kaestli.

TRADIMUS

This is a crucial point in evaluating the production of the ‘court’ homiliary. In general, it is unlike the St Gall productions, in terms of texts and occasions. The St Gall homiliaries do not provide patristic commentary for every day of Lent. Moreover, the St Gall homiliaries are much larger, and also more extensively decorated, with elaborate initials to begin nearly every text. Although the general stock of authors in both works is largely common, they went in different directions. Further, their selection of rare texts differs entirely, pointing to different priorities and library resources. Thus, although two homiliary expansions may be associated to some degree with St Gall, the homiliary efforts are quite distinct. This fact is not surprising, if we remember that the ‘court’ homiliary may have been finished under the influence of Grimald, while the St Gall homiliaries were completed at the abbey under Hartmut’s leadership as prior. While Grimald was away, Hartmut may have had a fairly free hand in organizing the community’s life.23 The different directions taken in the two efforts may show different evaluations of the patristic inheritance, even between abbot and prior. Thus, while I am willing to accept a St Gall connection (and even muster further evidence for it), it must be seen as a distinct effort of Grimald, and perhaps points to the real distance between him and the abbey during his duties in Regensburg. 6.2.2. More Augustine

I should now like to mention several efforts at expanding Paul’s homiliary that drew on older homiliary collections to add more entries from Augustine. For example, a small number of Carolingian collections combined Paul’s collection with Alan of Farfa’s. One compiler was especially bold. As I noted in Chapter 1, BSB, Clm 17194 (Bavaria, s. ix1/2) represents an attempt to pass off a large portion of Alan’s collection as if it were Paul’s. Although the text’s codico­logical remains are hard to read, due to some peculiar methods of arranging quires, it appears the text originally began with the full preface from the homiliary of Paul the Deacon, of which only one folio now survives. In other words, it originally began with the Epistola Generalis, which claimed that Paul’s homiliary surpasses all previous attempts at creating collections of homilies. It is a remarkable move to adopt this rhetoric to a new and very different text. The manu­script transmits only nine texts from Paul’s homiliary, followed by twenty-six from Alan’s.24 This early adaptation of Paul’s work seems like a conscious rejection of the patristic canon as it was valued by Paul and Charlemagne. The works of Bede and Gregory were entirely omitted, even among the material included from Paul, and the material added from Alan of Farfa was attributed primarily to Augustine.25 The compiler’s confidence is intriguing. BSB, Clm 17194 is one of our earliest witnesses. The creation of  23 Cf. Ratpert: St Galler Klostergeschicthen 9.8, ed. by Steiner, p. 208.  24 Indeed, BSB, Clm 17194 is one of the earliest witnesses to AF. HLM, p. 130.  25 A similar rejection may be operating in Avignon, Archives Départementales, MS 2.G.94

205

206

c ha p te r 6

Paul’s homiliary would be in the living memory of some, and it was clearly used elsewhere in Bavaria. But such a move was not without parallel. Leiden, Bibliotheek der Rijksuniversiteit, MS Voss. lat. F.4.A (NE Francia, s. ix4/4) is a manu­script fragment that transmits Paul the Deacon’s preface, including the Epistola Generalis, yet represents a heavily amplified text. Only the first three folios of this manu­script remain extant, yet the fragments transmit Paul’s full preface, including capitula lectionum, allowing us to glimpse the contents of the original manu­script. In the capitula, the additions to Paul’s text are clear: there are references to a series of forty-six additional biblical readings for feast days around Christmas, Epiphany, and Holy Week, along with twenty sermons attributed to Augustine, all of which are numbered out of sequence with the other homilies and include their incipits, unlike the entries in the capitula from Paul’s homiliary. The source for both the biblical and Augustinian readings is a particular manu­script and liturgical collection within that manu­script. Cyril Lambot described this work in a survey of Augustinian sermon collections,26 but omitted some details. With regard to the oldest witness, Cam­bridge, Uni­ver­sity Library, Additional MS 3479 (NE Francia, s. ix3/4), Lambot only mentioned that it contains two separate collections of Augustinian sermons: first, a copy of the De Penitentia collection, known most famously in an uncial manu­script copied on papyrus and used by Florus of Lyon;27 second, a separate collection Lambot dubbed the Homiliary of Saint-Mihiel. But my consultation of the manu­script revealed more material than Lambot mentioned: also Origen’s Commentary on the Song of Songs, followed by the full complement of Augustinian sermons and biblical readings that can be seen in Leiden, MS Voss. lat. F.4.A. In other words, the compiler of Leiden, MS Voss. lat. F.4.A drew on Cambridge, University Library, Additional MS 3479 in creating a new homiliary. I can only speculate about the compiler’s motive in mixing these two collections, yet passing them off as Paul’s homiliary: perhaps the community from which Leiden, MS Voss. lat. F.4.A originated had used something like the Homiliary of Saint-Mihiel for some time; perhaps they objected to Paul’s construal of the ‘best of the tradition’. Whatever the motive, the compiler boldly claimed the authority of Paul and Charlemagne for this new compilation. Another interesting feature of this manu­script involves a corruption in one line of the Epistola Generalis: where Paul’s original text claimed that the literate culture had been ‘nearly obliterated by the indolence of our [i.e. Charlemagne’s] elders’, the version in MS Voss. lat. F 4.A reads

(Provence, a foundation dedicated to St Pons, s. x). I shall deal with this latter text at greater length below.  26 Lambot, ‘La Tradition manuscrite des sermons de saint Augustin’.  27 CLA, vi, 783: Lyon, BM, MSS 604 +788 + BnF, MS NAL 1594 (s vi/vii); Lambot, ‘La Tradition manuscrite des sermons de saint Augustin’, p. 221.

TRADIMUS

‘by the indolence of our evil men’.28 Sadly, I have not been able to discover the institution where the homiliary was made. What is apparent, though, is that this particular combination of works was popular: Leiden, MS Voss. lat. F.4.A is one of three Carolingian manu­scripts made from the homiliary of Paul the Deacon and the Homiliary of Saint-Mihiel in North-east Francia, each apparently independent of the other.29 No collection joined the two sources in the same way, nor were they copied from each other. Either there were multiple copies of the Homiliary, or Cambridge, University Library, Additional MS 3479 was sent from place to place. The homiliaries I have mentioned in this section have a single common feature; they all represent discrete attempts at supplementing Paul’s text with further entries from the sermons of Augustine or from Scripture, drawing on other collections. The ratio of material from Paul’s homiliary or from another source witnesses to their differing assessments of Paul’s work and that of others. In two cases, I have noted evidence of attempts to pass off new compilations as if they were the original homiliary of Paul the Deacon. What these examples show us is that the ‘conversation’ around the extent and character of the patristic inheritance was often expressed through new manu­script compilations that suited the needs or desires of particular individuals or communities. These homiliaries are some of the clearest indications of the ongoing definition of the patristic canon in the Carolingian period. Charlemagne may have intervened in the definition of the patristic canon, but so did many others. 6.2.3. New Authors, New Collections

The conversation around the extent of the tradition did not end with these collections, however. Some homiliaries incorporated new Carolingian authors into the community of authoritative ‘Fathers’. The main difference between various manu­scripts that witness to this shift is the extent to which they drew in new authors. Most of the extant Carolingian manu­scripts incorporate new authors through the inclusion of a few new texts. For example, a group of witnesses across the Frankish Empire transmit texts on the feast of All Saints that, although normally included without the names of their authors (who still remain unknown), were doubtless composed in the Carolingian period. One text exists in a reliable edition: Legimus in ecclesiasticis historiis.30 The other stands in a corrupted version in the PL: Hodie dilectissimi omnium sanctorum.31 Most of the manu­scripts transmit these texts anonymously,  28 See Appendix 2: ‘oblitteratam pene maiorum nostrorum desidia’ vs. ‘oblitteratam pene malorum nostrorum desidia’. Perhaps ‘the indolence of our enemies’?  29 The others are Cambrai, Médiathèque d’agglomération de Cambrai, MS 365 (Cambrai Cathedral, s. x1/2); and Bibliothèque Carnegie, MS 296.2 (Reims, s. x1/2; provenance: Saint-Thierry).  30 Cross, ‘“Legimus in ecclesiasticis historiis”’.  31 Included there as Pseudo-Bede, Homelia 70, in PL, 94:450B–452C.

207

208

c ha p te r 6

but two St Gall witnesses attribute them to Rabanus Maurus and Walahfrid Strabo, respectively.32 The identity of the authors may elude us, but the inclusion of these sermons shows the speed with which new texts, even anonymous ones, were incorporated into Paul’s homiliary. Many witnesses are late, but two are from Tours and St Gall in the second quarter of the ninth century. The occasion of the sermons shows one of the most frequent reasons for the addition of material to Paul’s homiliary. All Saints was still a new observation, and neither Paul nor the patristic inheritance offered material directly suitable for it. Similarly, new authors might be added to older collections in order to provide material that commented on important liturgical readings not present in Paul’s text, which was primarily concerned with Gospel exegesis. Some of these additions were fairly minor. Basel, Öffentliche Bibliothek der Universität, MS B.IV.26 (St Gall, 883x912) adds two texts commenting on material from the comes during Easter Week (namely, Acts 8. 26 and i Peter 2. 1). The texts are drawn from the comes homiliary known in Co­logne, Dombibliothek, MS 172 (probably Mondsee, s. ix1/4) and CSG 422 (St Gall, s. ix1/2), mentioned above. Other attempts were more extensive. As I described in Chapter 1, BnF, MS lat. 16819 (NE Francia, probably Compiègne, s. ix3/4 and x) is a massive double homiliary, measuring 370mm × 280mm, with 334 folios. It was originally two manu­scripts written at different times (lat. 16819.A and 16819.B), but they were bound together in the early modern period. The first manu­script was a faithful witness to the winter portion of Paul’s homiliary. In the tenth century, however, work began on the second half of Paul’s text, and it was supplemented with the sermons of Jerome, Augustine, Pseudo-Augustine, Pseudo-Chrysostom, Faustus of Rietz, and Caesarius, the homilies of Gregory, Bede, Rabanus, and Haymo of Auxerre, Alcuin’s Commentaria in sancti Iohannis euangelium, and Pseudo-Bede’s commentary on the same gospel, along with some passiones sanctorum. It is possible that more authors were included: I have not yet identified all of the entries in this manu­script. The incipits of nearly every entry represent different (or corrupted) recensions, a slight impediment to progress. Most of the supplements to Paul’s collection in this expanded version of his second volume are homilies or commentaries on the readings of the comes and additional Gospel readings for ferial days.33 The significance of these additions is clear. At the creation of MS lat. 16819.A, the community was content with a witness to Paul’s text and his patristic

 32 BnF, MS NAL 2322 (Tours, s. ix2/4); Cambrai, Médiathèque d’agglomération de Cambrai, MS 546 (Arras, s. ix3/3) and 365 (probably Cambrai Cathedral, s. x); CSG 432 (St Gall, s. ix2/4) and 433 (St Gall, 883x912); and BLB, MS Aug. perg. 16 (Reichenau, s. x1/2). Two manu­scripts transmit only Legimus in ecclesiasticis historiis. BnF, MS lat. 16819.B (NE Francia, probably Compiègne, s. x); and BAV, MS Ottob. lat. 106 (St Cecilia’s, Rome, s. x or xi).  33 The compiler of the second manu­script also interpolated new readings into the first, commenting on the comes and other Gospel readings. Namely, fols 37–49 (at least), 100–102, and 132–35 of the current manu­script.

TRADIMUS

selection. I argued above that, if connected with Compiègne, this acceptance of Paul’s collection may be a direct emulation of the liturgy in Aachen.34 But by MS lat. 16819.B’s creation, the desire for fuller commentary on the comes and on other Gospel texts not included in Paul’s work, combined with the positive reception of specific Carolingian authors, led to these authors’ entry into the ranks of the Fathers. This is especially significant because not much time appears to have passed between the creation of these two collections: the shifts in script and decoration are visible, but subtle. The shift in attitude is more evident: Alcuin, Haymo, and Rabanus became Fathers. As such, MS lat. 16819.B represents a new phase in the shaping of the patristic canon in the Carolingian period. I shall now move on to consider other sorts of adaptations to Paul’s collection, changes that do not appear to represent differing evaluations of the patristic inheritance, but desires for different sorts of manu­script books. What I hope to have shown in this section, however, is the way that homiliary creation demonstrates different attitudes towards the Fathers, Charlemagne and Paul’s creation, and what represented the ‘best’ of the tradition.

6.3. Abbreviated Homiliaries The homiliary of Paul the Deacon was originally presented in two volumes, corresponding to the winter season (Advent to Holy Saturday) and summer season (Easter to St Andrew, commune sanctorum). From an early period, however, it seems that this two-volume division was considered too large.35 The catalogues of Reichenau, St Gall, Lorsch, and Bobbio bear witness to a three- or fourfold division by season, as I noted in Chapter 3,36 and most Carolingian witnesses to Paul’s text are similarly divided, abbreviated, or fragmentary. Potential motivations for division or abbreviation are manifold. Smaller manu­script books were less cumbersome and could be produced rapidly, with a smaller investment of time and resources. In this way, a copy of Paul’s homiliary might be acquired slowly. Or, a community could choose a portion of Paul’s collection and not the whole text. Smaller witnesses might

 34 See pp. 52–54.  35 Unabbreviated witnesses are a distinct minority. The unabbreviated witnesses, listed by type and chrono­logy follow. Winter witnesses: BLB, MS Aug. perg. 29 (Reichenau, s. ix2/4); BSB, Clm 4533 (SW Germany, s. ix3/4); BnF, MS lat. 16819.A (NE Francia, probably Compiègne, s. ix3/4); Angers, Médiathèque Toussaint, MS 235 (226) (W Francia, probably St Serge, s. x). Summer witnesses: Médiathèque du Grand Troyes, MS 159 (Moutier-la-Celle (?), s. ix or x); BnF, MS lat. 11699 (NE Francia, s. ix1/2); BnF, MS NAL 2322 (Tours, s. ix2/4); BnF, MS lat. 12404 (Tours, s. ixmed); Co­logny, Fondation Martin Bodmer, MS CB 128 (Reichenau, s. ix2/4); CSG 432 (St Gall, s. ix2/4); BnF, MS lat. 9604 (Tours, s. ixmed); BSB, Clm 4534 (SW Germany, s. ix3/4); BnF, MS lat. 1897 (Tours, s. x).  36 See pp. 139–44.

209

21 0

c ha p te r 6

also have been more suitable for travel, for personal use, or for limited uses on specific days (as I shall explain shortly). Abbreviation of Paul’s text took many forms, and a different set of purposes stands behind each form. 6.3.1. One Entry per Occasion

Several witnesses to Paul’s collection reduced his ample selection to a smaller number of occasions or texts. Bibliothèque d’Agglomération de Saint-Omer, MS 202 (NE Francia, probably St Bertin, s. x4/4) is a text more famous for its travels and its transmission of Old English Apocrypha than for its relation to Paul’s homiliary. The manu­script may have been produced in St Bertin in the late ninth century, travelled to England in the tenth, been used by Leofric of Exeter (1016–1072), and then returned to the Continent at some later point.37 It is a unique witness to cultural transmission. This text’s transmission of Paul’s homiliary is important: it has reduced his choices to one per occasion, omitting especially the non-exegetical material. Two homiliaries from St Gall are abbreviated in similar fashion, though they are not as focussed on exegesis as Saint-Omer, MS 202. They each include some sermons and saint’s lives or passions: Basel, Öffentliche Bibliothek der Universität, MS B.IV.26 (883x912) and Stuttgart, Württembergische Landesbibliothek, MS HB VII 57 (St Gall, 883x912). Cambrai, Médiathèque d’agglomération de Cambrai, MS 546 (Arras, s. ix3/3) also reduces Paul’s choices significantly. But the latter has another principle of abbreviation that is even more evident, and I shall address it in the next section. Each of these abbreviations succeeded in reducing Paul’s collection to about a quarter of its original size, yet they contain homilies for significant portions of the year. In this way, they would be suitable for fulfilling the demand that priests or bishops own collections of homilies, yet without making the material cost of such a collection quite so prohibitive. I shall discuss this issue in further detail below. But there may have been other reasons for declining to copy all of Paul’s material: a community might already possess some of the material in Paul’s collection and want to avoid duplication. The latter, for instance, is clearly the case in Darmstadt, Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek, Hs. 523 (W Germany, s. x). The witness omits the homilies of Gregory for reasons that are clearly marked in its rubrics: the community already possessed his homilies in another manu­script, and Darmstadt, Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek, Hs. 523 (W Germany, s. x) directs its users to use the other text on those occasions where Gregory’s preaching was assigned in Paul’s homiliary. 6.3.2. Special Feast Days Only

At other times, a community might desire a book only for use on the highest feasts of the year. I already mentioned one manu­script constructed for this purpose: Cambrai, Médiathèque d’agglomération de Cambrai, MS 546. This  37 Cross and Crick, ‘The Manu­script’.

TRADIMUS

manu­script only includes one homily for most of the occasions with which it is concerned. But it is the occasions itself that are interesting: the Christo­logical feasts, three Marian feasts (Purification, Assumption, Nativity), the feasts of St John and St Stephen, Feria IV of Easter Week, the birth of St John the Baptist, the feasts of St Michael, St Vaast, St Martin, and All Saints. The only days with more than one reading are the Purification of Mary (a sermon of Ambrose, a homily of Bede), the feast of St Vaast (vita and homily by Alcuin), and All Saints (the two anonymous texts noted above). As such, the manu­script gives us a very clear sense of, at minimum, the highest days in sacred time for a particular community and the sorts of texts thought appropriate for those days. If one compares this list with the lists of primary feast days I mentioned in Chapter 2,38 the overlaps are obvious. One of the clearest deviations, however, is the attention given to St Vaast and St Mary, which is why this manu­script is traditionally associated with Arras.39 A similar homiliary is BLB, MS Aug. perg. 16 (Reichenau, s. x1/2), a manu­ script whose date is disputed. Bernhard Bischoff and others have dated it to the early tenth century on the basis of its script, while Hartmut Hoffmann tentatively argued for the second third of the tenth century because of its decorated initials.40 For my purposes here, I simply note that the original core of the text (fols 9r–276v), prior to additions made to it, is a homiliary similar to that from Cambrai. It is concerned with providing readings for the most important feasts of the year, though its list of those feasts is larger, and it provides more texts to choose from. Some of the additional feasts include more ferial days in the week of Easter, the Annunciation, Holy Innocents, St Mark, Sts James and Phillip, Sts Peter and Paul, St Lawrence, the Holy Angel, St Martin, St Andrew, and a commune sanctorum. As with the Cambrai manu­script, I note two outstanding feasts: those of St Mary and St Mark. Again, we seem to have a desire here to create a book for the most important days of the year for a particular community. This adaptation may also have streamlined use: Reichenau would have a book for the major feast days, while another manu­script book was eventually created for the Sundays of the year (BLB, MS Aug. perg. 37, discussed below). Perhaps this separation into primary feast days and Sundays made it easy to choose the liturgical books for a particular day. On the other hand, another motivation may be at work. BLB, MS Aug. perg. 16’s decoration is far more elaborate. Although both

 38 See pp. 70–72. Cf. pp. 101–04.  39 Katalog, i, 175; ‘Repertoire’, p. 16; Man. datés, i, 77.  40 See Cross, ‘“Legimus in ecclesiasticis historiis”’, p. 102; Katalog, i, 333; Engelmann, Reichenauer Buchmalerei, p. 26; Hoffmann, Buchkunst und Königtum im ottonischen und frühsalischen Reich, pp. 110–11, 325, saying its initials were the basis for the Gero-Codex, Darmstadt, Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek, Hs. 1948 (Reichenau, 869), the first of the great Gospel manu­scripts of Ottonian Reichenau; Suckale-Redlefsen, Die Handschriften des 8. bis 11. Jahrhunderts der Staatsbibliothek Bamberg, i, 55–56, comparing it to Bamberg, Staatsbibliothek, Msc. Jur.1 (Rome or nearby, s. x3/4).

211

21 2

c ha p te r 6

MS Aug. perg. 16 and MS Aug. perg. 37 bear distinctive, elaborate initials, the manu­script created for regular Sunday use was decorated with orange ink only, while the manu­script for the highest feasts was decorated in gold, silver, blue, purple, and black. See my discussion of decorated texts below. 6.3.3. Sundays Only

Following on the latter discussion, I am aware of two manu­scripts that abbreviated Paul’s text to include only Gospel exegesis for Sundays. The witness from St Gall, CSG 434 (872x883), is unique, in that it was written entirely for the Sundays after Pentecost. It is a curious text as well because, as Susan Rankin has noted, Notker the Stammerer copied all but four pages of it (pp. 337–40).41 The text also reorganizes Paul’s post-Pentecost Sundays to a ‘continuous’ system.42 BLB, MS Aug. perg. 37 (Reichenau, s. x) was created to contain all of the Sundays of the year in a single volume, along with a commune sanctorum (fols 18–136). Texts for saints’ days and other feasts appear to have been added at a later time (fols 1–17, 137–94). Its dating is uncertain, usually being placed in the mid- to late tenth century,43 but it is similar to CSG 434 in that its post-Pentecost system mostly follows a ‘continuous’ style, though the compiler shifted to a different system partway through the text. Either way, the two texts from two monasteries with close links exhibit similar approaches to homiliary production in the tenth century. 6.3.4. Saints Only

Another similar impulse was to create texts solely for the feasts of the saints, separate from the Christo­logical feasts and the normal round of Sundays. The earliest example of this kind of adaptation is Manchester, John Rylands Library, MS 12 (Luxeuil, s. ix2/4), fols 10v–131r. Close analysis reveals that the book takes eleven texts assigned to specific saints in Paul’s text (such as the entries for the birth of St John the Baptist or Sts Peter and Paul), eleven texts from Paul’s commune sanctorum, and the remainder from other works,44 in order to make a wholly new book. In this way, the text could provide for full celebrations of the community’s sanctoral calendar, without constant reference to Paul’s commune sanctorum. Readings were fixed for Frankish saints like St Medard of Soisson, St Denis, or Sts Crispin and Crispinian, originally omitted from Paul’s work.

 41 Rankin, ‘Notker bibliothecarius’. I was grateful to Susan for sharing an advance copy of her chapter, after a presentation about it as well as many conversations on these manu­scripts.  42 See above, pp. 69–70.  43 Bernhard Bischoff ’s posthumous Katalog dates only the section of Sulpicius Severus’s Vita Martini on fols 137–40 (s. ix3/3), added to the manu­script after its composition. Katalog, i, 334.  44 E.g. Isidore’s De ortu et obitu patrum, Jerome’s Commentariorum in Mattheum libri IV, or Augustine’s Tractatus in Iohannem.

TRADIMUS

CSG 433 (883x912) is a similar sort of manu­script book, albeit executed on a much grander scale.45 Written entirely by Notker of St Gall and extensively decorated, the work contains some of Paul’s explicit assignments and commune sanctorum, but joined to lives and passions of the saints and material like Aileranus Scottus’s Interpretatio mystica progenitorum Domini Iesu Christi.46 This homiliary provides for all sorts of saints not included by Paul, such as St Gall, St Silvester, St Cecilia, and St Maurice. A third such text is Orléans, Médiathèque Gambetta, MS 197 (NE Francia, perhaps Soissons, s. x, xi and xii), a decorated collection of saints lives and passions, along with some sermons, which was progressively supplemented over the course of two centuries.47 Although the manu­script contains ample material for a variety of saints,48 there are only two selections from Paul’s homiliary, and they come at the beginning of the text. They are PD I:30 and I:31 (GPD I:27 and I:28), assigned for St Stephen’s feast. The sanctoral collections made from Paul’s homiliary all add similar genres of material: hagio­graphies of various kinds. This is perhaps unsurprising: Paul’s selections often provided no explicit mention of the saint who was being commemorated, such as PD II:66, In natale sancti Laurentii (GPD II:68), Augustine, Tractatus in Iohannem 51.9–13 on John 12. 24–26. Additionally, the adaptation of Paul’s collection in this manner might have served the purpose of adapting his work to liturgical observations that had already developed in particular churches or would develop after receiving his work. It also shows that many communities were not content to use Paul’s limited sanctoral calendar; their enthusiasm for other saints could not be contained. 6.3.5. Sermons Only

A small number of witnesses to the homiliary of Paul the Deacon, including some of the heavily amplified works surveyed above, omitted nearly all of the exegetical material from Paul’s text. For this reason, some have not been identified as witnesses to the homiliary in the past. The most striking example of such an abbreviation is London, British Library, Additional MS 16960 (W Germany, s. ix2/4), mentioned in Chapter 1. It is the ‘purest’ such witness to Paul: it has neatly removed all homiletic material in favour of retaining only the sermons in the collection. A single sermon was added to this manu­script that is in few other witnesses to Paul’s collection: Caesarius, Sermo 222.

 45 706 pages at 410mm × 300mm.  46 See Ailerani, ed. and trans. by Breen.  47 Material was added to the manu­script multiple times over the course of two centuries, though much of it was in place by the mid-eleventh century, as a small capitula lectionum on p. 12 shows.  48 E.g. Stephen, Silvester, Thomas, Anianus, Mark, Peter and Paul, Holy Cross, Sixtus, Felicissimus, and Agapetus, Nazarius and Celsus, Quintinus, and considerable material for St Martin and his translation.

213

214

c ha p te r 6

Most of the other extant manu­scripts of this kind are ‘mixed’ texts: they contain significant amounts of material from other sources. Reims, Bibliothèque Carnegie, MS 296.2 drew together Paul’s homiliary and the Homiliary of Saint-Mihiel. BSB, Clm 17194 is similar. It focuses overwhelmingly on sermons, perhaps yet another reason it favoured the work of Alan of Farfa over that of Paul. Another example is Avignon, Archives Départementales, MS 2.G.94 (Provence, a foundation dedicated to St Pons, s. x): it appears to mix Paul’s homiliary with a variety of other collections, such as the homiliary of Alan of Farfa, a set of Augustine’s Sermones, John Chrysostom, and a variety of other authors like Fulgentius. Two lives of St Pons were added later on empty folios of the manu­script. It is unclear to me why a handful of communities found it necessary to separate the sermons from the homilies in Paul’s collection, but the genre distinction of homily/sermo, as labelled by Paul in his text, was evidently clearly enough to facilitate such a move. Perhaps there was a desire to use one set of books for the first eight lections of the Sunday and feast-day Night Office, and another set for the final four? This is what Raymond Étaix concluded in his assessment of Reims, Bibliothèque Carnegie, MS 296.2, on the common assumption that homilies were read in particular nocturns of the Night Office, and sermons in another (I shall treat this topic in further detail below).49 If so, it would imply that, in contrast to some other examples above, certain communities desired a whole series of liturgical books, rather than a single text, whether for ease of use, the elaboration of the liturgy (e.g. multiple, designated lectors, with their own books), or some other purpose.

6.4. Cases of Extraction Three manu­scripts represent a very specialized use of Paul’s homiliary: extraction. Two manu­scripts copy lessons for the Christmas Vigil into the blank spaces of other texts, extracting some of the same lessons:50 Reims, Bibliothèque Carnegie, MS 116 (Reims, s. ix3/3) contains tenth-century additions from PD I:16–17 (GPD I:15bis–16), copied on fols 125r–126v. The manu­script is otherwise taken up by Old Testament commentaries.51 It was probably copied from Reims, Bibliothèque Carnegie, MS 296.2, mentioned earlier.52

 49 Étaix, ‘Les Homiliaires liturgiques de Saint-Thierry’, p. 148 (repr. in HPL, p. 294). He adduces similar examples in eleventh- and twelfth-century manu­scripts held in Avranches and Paris in ‘Les Homéliaires patristiques du Mont Saint-Michel’, p. 412, n. 10, repr. in HPL, p. 288.  50 Orléans, Médiathèque Gambetta, MS 155 (132) (Fleury, s. xi) represents a similar manu­script, but with slightly different Isaiah lections than PD I:16 and a different set of homilies and sermons.  51 One on the Heptateuch, attributed to Isidore (fols 1–124), then Bede’s commentary on Genesis (fols 127–223). An eleventh-century fragment of letters between Jerome and Pope Damasus, as well as a brief account of papal reigns, was added at some later point and makes up fols 224–25.  52 Reims, MS 116 clearly depends on MS 296.2. E.g. a correction on 296.2, fol. 23v is reflected in

TRADIMUS

CSG 426 (NW Italy, s. ix) is a copy of the Liber scintillarum by Defensor of Liguge. It contains PD I:16–18 (GPD I:15bis–17), joined to two sermons attributed to St Augustine: Legimus sanctum Moysen and Gaudeamus, fratres carissimi, laetentur. After this comes an anonymous text of questions and responses on the seven signs that witnessed to Jesus (pp. 275–87) and on the nature of humanity (pp. 287–89). When, why, or how this material was copied is unclear. No other Carolingian witnesses to Paul’s homiliary also transmit these particular Augustinian sermons, for instance; they are rarely even transmitted together in collections of Augustine.53 The question and response texts also appear to be unique. Given the unique character of the material, I can only conclude that this was a special selection: someone wanted the Isaiah readings and these particular homilies; whether they copied or composed the other texts is another question. The time of copying was after the initial date of composition, but probably still in Italy in the first half of the ninth century. Are these two manu­scripts related? This seems unlikely, given the geo­graphic and temporal distance involved. Additionally, their texts bear no common errors to demonstrate their connection. At the moment, they remain a puzzle. The third manu­script in this group is Orléans, Médiathèque Gambetta, MS 38 (NE Francia, s. xinc), a manu­script of Old Testament commentaries.54 A set of readings for the feast of St Felicity follows the commentaries, beginning with Proverbs 31. 10 on pp. 165–84; these are followed by the sermons from Paul’s homiliary on pp. 185–249. In this case, there are eight extractions, and they all represent texts with a clear theme. They are sermons from the summer volume of Paul the Deacon’s homiliary, copied with their original rubrics and numbering, even though some are quite odd.55 One extracted text was written by Maximus II; the other seven were attributed to John Chrysostom. At first glance, they seem to represent an attempt at acquiring rare texts: no pre-Carolingian or Carolingian witnesses to these texts are known apart from the homiliary of Paul the Deacon.56 But something else is going on as well.

MS 116, fol. 126v, and both later had a common error scrubbed out at the beginning of PD I:17 (GPD I:16).  53 Lambot, ‘La Tradition manuscrite des sermons de saint Augustin’, pp. 230, 233, mentions only the eighth-century homiliary of Fleury and an eighth-century homiliary copied in half-uncial in Italy, BAV, MS Barb. Lat. 671 (CLA, i, 64). Only the latter has the sermons in the order in which CSG 426 transmits them. There is thus a possibility that the person who copied CSG 426, pp. 253–73 consulted the Vatican manu­script.  54 Pseudo-Jerome, Quaestiones hebraicae in libros Regum I–II et Paralipomenon I–II; an anonymous Commentarius in Deuteronomium; and an anonymous commentary titled De nominibus fortium David.  55 E.g. Sermo beati Iohannis de Abessalon ubi Dauid patrem perseqitur & de plio fugiens obligato gutture arboris ramo suspenditure: LVIII. Ortho­graphy and abbreviations are original.  56 Indeed, the particular sermons attributed to John Chrysostom from this collection have yet to be found in an independent collection before the fourteenth century. Leroy, ‘Vingt-deux homélies africaines nouvelles’.

215

21 6

c ha p te r 6

All of the texts are shortened from their original length: this cannot simply be the copying of rare material. I believe instead that the compiler was either abbreviating for preaching purposes, for the original versions were somewhat long, or copying out clean versions of these texts for something like a breviary. The former seems more likely to me, since most of the sermons are focused on reforming ethical behaviour: encouraging faith, obedience to parents, honouring the saints, performing acts of mercy, and fasting. The remainder urge imitation of Christian martyrs.

6.5. Abbreviated Readings Orléans, Médiathèque Gambetta, MS 38 was not the only manu­script to contain significantly shortened readings. Other examples are from the late ninth century or the tenth century, showing that the path towards the formal abbreviation of readings did not happen quickly. Among the earliest witnesses is Stuttgart, Württembergische Landesbibliothek, MS HB VII 57 (St Gall, 883x912). I have already noted that it only included a single entry for each occasion. However, six of the readings are also significantly curtailed. The great trend towards abbreviation appeared fully, however, in BLB, MS Aug. perg. 37 (Reichenau, s. x), also noted above. All of its readings have been abbreviated, such that few are longer than two folios and many are only one. This is a significant change. Within an earlier homiliary from Reichenau (BLB, MS Aug. perg. 19), a homily of Gregory or Bede might stretch on for five folios. The differences are even clearer when size and lines are taken into account. MS Aug. perg. 19 is 402mm × 314mm, 2 columns with 35 lines, while MS Aug. perg. 37 is somewhat smaller, at 370mm × 279mm, 2 columns with 27 lines. Moreover, MS Aug. perg. 37’s script is much larger, so that each folio of MS Aug. perg. 19 contains 315 words per side, while MS Aug. perg 37’s folios contain about 120 words per side. This is a drastic abbreviation: from between 1000 and 1500 words per entry to about 120–240 words per entry. The trend towards abbreviation appears also at St Gall in CSG 423 (s. xex) and 425 (s. x/xi). Homilies are limited to two or three folios at most. This new development was carried out fully in the eleventh century when the earliest St Gall breviaries were made.57 The most abbreviated Paul the Deacon witness that may still be Carolingian is BAV, MS Vat. lat. 378 (Rome, Santa Maria in Pallara, s. x, xi, and xii).58 The manu­script is hard to date; it is a composite manu­script made up of  57 CSG 387, 413, and 414. See Gy, ‘Les Premiers Bréviaires de Saint-Gall’.  58 The designation to this location is clear from monastic oaths related to ‘Santa Maria in Palladio’ on fol. 33v; the name came from the supposed location of the Trojan statue of Athena, the Palladium, held in a pagan temple nearby. This church was later rededicated as San Sebastiano al Palatino. See Bloch, Monte Cassino in the Middle Ages, i, 320–22; Wilmart, ‘La Trinité des Scots à Rome et les notes du Vat. lat. 378’.

TRADIMUS

texts written at different times, and the section containing the homiliary has received little attention in the past. Currently, the manu­script contains letters of Jerome and Chromatius of Aquileia (fols 1r–2r), a large Kalendar (fols 2v–72v), a copy of the Rule of Benedict copied in many hands (fols 73r–109r), and then a homiliary (fols 109v–126v). It is highly unlikely that these were all joined together originally. The Rule of Benedict was written significantly later, perhaps at the end of the eleventh century, and the martyro­logy was written after 1115, as the death of Bishop Leo of Ostia is included in it. The homiliary, however, appears to be earlier. I mention it here only as a potential Carolingian text, not as one I am firmly willing to date to the period. It contains Paul the Deacon texts, supplemented with Alcuin, Augustine, Peter Chryso­logus, Gregory, and others I cannot identify. Its readings have been abbreviated to roughly half a folio per reading. It thus covers a period from Advent to the Fifth Sunday after Pentecost in only twenty folios. This level of abbreviation matches that of breviaries from the later Middle Ages, such as Cam­bridge, Uni­ver­sity Library, MS Ii.4.20 (Ely Cathedral, s. xiii),59 albeit without neumes or other indications that the lessons were sung. This is a fitting way to end this section on adaptations made to Paul’s homiliary. I began with amplified texts that provided many options for patristic reading on many liturgical occasions. Throughout the ninth century, several communities attempted to gather as many fitting sermons as possible for each important day of the liturgical year. By the turn of the tenth century, however, the trend towards abbreviation had already started, and was in full swing from the middle of the century onwards. This was not a final ‘turn’, of course; many full homiliaries were produced from the eleventh century to the fifteenth, and full homiliaries were among the earliest printed texts in the late fifteenth century, as I have noted. But some communities were ready to pare down and regularize their liturgy in the tenth century, such that they made interventions into their witnesses to Paul’s homiliary, creating new collections with shorter readings.

6.6. Decorated Texts Elaborately decorated copies of Paul’s homiliary were produced only in certain areas. This does not mean that other witnesses were poorly made. The four extant witnesses from Tours are well crafted but austere, not unlike Tours Bibles. Their initials are simple, and they contain no drawing or painting. Other similar examples abound, but a few Carolingian witnesses are manu­scripts of considerable beauty. Some communities used the copying and adaptation of Paul’s work as an opportunity to create distinct productions, exercising their  59 On which, see Billett, ‘Sermones ad diem pertinentes’, pp. 350–60.

217

21 8

c ha p te r 6

Figure 2. Decoration at beginning of Paul’s homiliary, BLB, MS Aug. perg. 29 (Reichenau, s. ix2/4), fol. 6r.

TRADIMUS

artistic talents and embellishing the sacred pages of the Fathers ‘in the name of Almighty God’, as Paul’s original preface put it, or ‘in the name of Christ’ and ‘in the name of the Holy Trinity’, as some homiliaries from St Gall began.60 It will come as little surprise that the productions of St Gall and Reichenau take pride of place here. No other scriptoria produced such finely decorated homiliaries from the second quarter of the ninth century until the early eleventh. Each of their earliest copies was a winter homiliary, produced in the first half of the ninth century and covered in distinctive initials; they were probably produced without collaboration between the two monasteries, as I noted in Chapter 4.61 However, the monasteries produced and decorated their summer homiliaries together, and one wonders whether Wolfcoz of St Gall and Reginbert of Reichenau might have taken a lead in the collaboration, considering how closely the finished products resemble their work.62 Three manu­scripts from the second quarter of the ninth century reveal this collaboration between the two monasteries: Co­logny, Fondation Martin Bodmer, CB 128 (Reichenau); CSG 432 (St Gall); and BLB, MS Aug. perg. 19 (Reichenau).63 Examples may be seen in Figures 2 and 3. Similar initials occur throughout the three homiliaries. At the least, one text served as the model for the others, but it is also possible that the two monasteries collaborated more closely in the production of these manu­scripts. To my eye, the figures in Co­logny, MS CB 128 seem the earliest, with CSG 432 modelled on or produced after them. BLB, MS Aug. perg. 19 is then the latest, often altering the design in significant ways. An analysis of their texts reveals the same thing: the errors and lacunae of Co­logny, MS CB 128 are repeated in CSG 432 and in BLB, MS Aug. perg. 19.64 The styles of the two monasteries would develop along parallel lines in the later ninth century and early tenth century, though they reacted differently to the task of decorating later homiliaries. St Gall continued to use a red ink outline style, rather than decorating its homiliaries in gold, as it would do

 60 E.g. CSG 430 (St Gall, 850x872), p. 26; Basel, Öffentliche Bibliothek der Universität, MS B.IV.26 (883x912), fol. 6v.  61 BLB, MS Aug. perg. 29 (Reichenau); Basel, Öffentliche Bibliothek der Universität, MS B.III.2 (St Gall).  62 CSG 20 (c. 820–30), Gallican psalter (Wolfcoz); CSG 367 (s. ix2/4), Evangelary (Reginbert). Von Euw, Die St Galler Buchkunst vom 8. bis zum Ende des 11. Jahrhunderts, i, 331–34; Maag, ‘Zum sogennanten St Galler Wolfcoz-Evangelistar’. R. McKitterick noted the connection between the two monasteries and some of these manu­scripts in The Frankish Kingdoms under the Carolingians, pp. 200–227, at p. 213.  63 Cf. von Euw, Die St Galler Buchkunst vom 8. bis zum Ende des 11. Jahrhunderts, i, 70–71. Besides noting a similarity to the work or influence of Wolfcoz and Reginbert on this manu­script, von Euw’s characterization is not entirely unhelpful, as he was not aware of the Co­logny manu­script.  64 Compare, Co­logny, MS CB 128, fol. 141v; CSG 532, p. 323; and BLB, MS Aug. perg. 19, fol. 56r–v. Notker and the corrector of MS Aug. perg. 19 catch the omission ‘spiritalibus sit plena mysteriis’, but only Notker catches an entire missing sentence in the next section of Bede’s homily.

219

220

c ha p te r 6

a

b

c

d

Figure 3. Four ‘S’ initials from Reichenau and St Gall. Images licensed under Creative Commons for research purposes, cropped for detail. a: Co­logny, MS CB 128 (Reichenau, s. ix2/4), fol. 129v. e-codices, . b: CSG 432 (St Gall, s. ix2/4), p. 268. e-codices, . c: BLB, MS Aug. perg 19 (Reichenau, s. ix2/4), fol. 30. Badische Landesbibliothek, Digitale Sammlungen, . d: BLB, MS Aug. perg. 19 (Reichenau, s. ix2/4), fol. 36v. Badische Landesbibliothek, Digitale Sammlungen, .

TRADIMUS

with a series of evangeliaries produced in the same period. Their decoration was deliberate: there are visible ‘grades’ in the quality of drawing included in particular texts. The homiliary for Septuagesima through Holy Saturday (CSG 431) is the plainest: the initials remain quite large, but fairly simple in comparison to others. The homiliary for the feasts of the saints is the most elaborate extant homiliary (CSG 434). It not only contains the most elaborate decoration — every initial is a veritable maze of vines, leaves, and interlace designs — but it also contains a full drawing.65 Sadly, we can only speculate about what the lost Easter–Pentecost homiliary, mentioned in Chapter 4, might have looked like. I note that the small homiliaries produced at St Gall generally exhibit less decoration. Stuttgart, Württembergische Landesbibliothek, MS HB VII 57 has a single decorated initial on its first folio. Basel, Öffentliche Bibliothek der Universität, MS B.IV.26 has little decoration but contains two significant drawings. It opens with a drawing of the adoration of the shepherds (fol. 6r), completed by Mary, Joseph, the ox and ass; a company of angels looks on as well. Folios 6v–7r contain decorated initials of a significant size, but the remainder of the manu­script eschews such embellishment until the readings for Easter. Then, folio 68v contains a drawing of the empty tomb, the sleeping soldiers, and an angel giving the news to Mary Magdalene and another woman. A decorated initial starts the homily for Easter day on folio 69r, but that is the end of major decoration for this manu­script. After this point, homiliaries produced at St Gall became fairly plain. The artistic effort expended in the process of revising and expanding their witnesses to Paul’s text (850–912), reviewed earlier, appears to have been the high point of homiliary decoration. Reichenau followed a slightly different course, as can be seen in Figure 4. As I noted above, they did not significantly amplify their witnesses to Paul’s homiliary. Instead, they made a well-decorated homiliary for Sundays, BLB, MS Aug. perg. 37 (s. x), filled with some significant orange ink outline initials: the familiar vines, leaves, and interlace patterns make an appearance here. But their greatest efforts were reserved for BLB, MS Aug. perg. 16: the amount of gold used in the homiliary for the highest feasts is staggering. The full repertoire of initials seen in Co­logny, MS CB 128 and BLB, MS Aug. perg. 19 reappear but in highly embellished forms, and few initials lack gold overlay, paired with blue, purple, and green. BLB, MS Aug. perg. 16 hints at the quality of work that Reichenau artists would unveil in their later Ottonian masterpieces.66 Among other extant witnesses, I have found significant decoration only in the manu­scripts from Compiègne. The decoration is not as thorough as that of St Gall and Reichenau, though we have been robbed of a significant decoration, removed at some point from folio 2v. Gold was not in use, nor was a red outline

 65 On p. 44 St Augustine is handing a manu­script to Peter the Deacon; it is attached to a text attributed to him, explaining the Creed.  66 E.g. the Gero-Codex, Darmstadt, Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek, Hs. 1948 (Reichenau, 869).

221

222

c ha p te r 6

Figure 4. Gold-leaf initial, BLB, MS Aug. perg. 16 (Reichenau, s. x1/2), fol. 128r. Image licensed for research purposes under Creative Commons. Badische Landesbibliothek, Digitale Sammlungen, .

TRADIMUS

technique. Most of the initials are filled with simple geometric patterns in a variety of colours, along with small flourishes in the form of small leaves or vines at the ends of letters: blue, red, and green usually deployed together. But a handful of designs are more complex, such as that on folio 23v for the first lesson of the Christmas Vigil, where the artist deployed a variety of interlace, floral flourishes, and animal forms, filled in with green, yellow, and blue. What was the goal of such decoration, especially the emphasis on decorated initials? As Rosamond McKitterick has said of monastic scribal activity, the ‘production of books […] could readily become an essential part of the monastic and devotional life’.67 So too, could decoration. Attempts at producing beautiful books were part of that overall embellishment of liturgy in the Carolingian era, aimed at rendering appropriate, reverent service to God. As I highlighted in Chapter 3, the homiliary’s creation was already framed in aesthetic terms, as much as in theo­logical ones. Paul’s task was to select eloquent pieces of patristic rhetoric. Of course, unlike pictorial illumination, especially in Books of Hours and other later medi­eval liturgical books, these decorated initials in Carolingian homiliaries do not bring scenes from the Bible, saints’ lives or passions, or the liturgy before the eye of the manu­script’s user.68 Instead, the increase of the visual beauty of homiliaries mirrors more generally the rhetorical and theo­logical splendour contained within the readings, a combination of visual magnificence with legibility that could not fail to move and impress the reader.69 As Dagulf wrote in the colophon to Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, MS lat. 1861 (‘Hofschule’ of Charlemagne, before 795): ‘Behold, the golden letters paint David’s psalms. Songs like these should be adorned so well. They promise golden kingdoms and a lasting good without end.’70 Such decoration aptly symbolizes what Dominic Janes has described as the Christian appropriation of ‘treasure culture’: spiritual excellence came to be honoured and symbolized materially through beauty, not least because of the influence of exegetical texts focused on the allegorical interpretation of gold and precious stones.71 Illumination of the material letter symbolized (or made present) the spiritual illumination promised by the patristic text. The movement to decorate may also be linked to the fullest expression of the gifts and devotion of a community. To compose a stunning book could be itself a kind of offering or prayer, as the dedication lines I quoted at the beginning of this section make clear. Moreover, we must imagine the sort of expectation that could build in an ecclesiastical community around such  67 McKitterick, ‘Nuns’ Scriptoria’, p. 33; Ganz, ‘Book Production in the Carolingian Empire’, pp. 796–97.  68 See, e.g., Wieck, Time Sanctified.  69 Mayr-Harting, Ottonian Book Illumination, i, 44–47, 117.  70 Quoted in Mayr-Harting, Ottonian Book Illumination, i, 47.  71 Janes, God and Gold in Late Antiquity, pp. 63–84, 145–49, noting especially Apocalypse and Song of Songs commentaries.

223

224

c ha p te r 6

pieces of art. Some would have taken months or years to complete. Monks or canons would know about the work going on, might hear of or see early drafts or plans. A homiliary might be produced one year, another some time later, and older books would gradually be replaced with new ones that expressed more clearly and effectively the faith, identity, and artistic abilities of the community. Moreover, the holistic activity of manu­script production in an ecclesiastical institution would require the work of many: those involved in the direct work of producing or acquiring parchment, preparing it, making inks and tools, copying and editing texts, practising initials or drawing, and finally bringing the whole together and using it weekly; but also those caring for the livestock or flocks whose pelts and quills were an integral part of manu­script production, those purchasing or finding the necessary natural ingredients for inks, those gathering the wood or making the string that went into bindings. Finally, this whole enterprise would be surrounded by the larger liturgical, spiritual, and material life of an institution, its religious and educational work, its management of property, and its relationship with a variety of neighbours, all of which created the environment for such work. The careful design and production of manu­script books of this nature relied on a whole economy, in the sense of a zone in which material goods might be received, produced, and transformed, but more chiefly in the sense of ‘a microcosm of order’,72 a well-organized community whose life was centred on the production, recitation, and exposition of particular texts: the Bible, the Fathers, the liturgy. The creation or special adornment of a homiliary was an especially intense expression of the potential of such an economy. It drew together its varied activities into a single work of elevated significance, immediately feeding back into the community’s purpose and life.73 This is the larger perspective that the rest of this chapter embraces. Any account of the adaptation or use of a homiliary like Paul’s must recognize the larger communal life that such use entailed and relied upon. The reason for creating an abbreviated or an amplified copy of Paul’s homiliary was occasioned by the needs of a community, along with its spiritual and material ambitions and limitations, its values and taste in patristic literature, and its larger sense of purpose. The use of Paul’s homiliary to create a new manu­script that focused on the highest feast days of the year or on particular saints’ days expressed and defined the identity of a community. The same could be said of a community that received Paul’s work without altering it for their own use: a different intellectual and spiritual milieu is implied or, alternatively, conditioned by such reception, one in which a community might alter its liturgy to adapt wholesale

 72 I borrow the phrase, though not entirely the concept, from Raftis, ‘Western Monasticism and Economic Organization’, p. 459.  73 For a similar observation on the ‘entanglement’ of material texts in communities of production, see McKitterick, ‘Migrations and the Written Word in the Early Middle Ages’. Cf. McKitterick, The Carolingians and the Written Word, pp. 138–48.

TRADIMUS

the reading practices of another. Furthermore, the cunning representation of one’s new work, as if it were Paul’s and Charlemagne’s (as in BSB, Clm 17194, and Leiden, MS Voss. lat. F.4.A), represents a redeployment of royal work, intentions, and rhetoric, combined with one’s own genius for compilation, in order to fashion a work with new authority. Throughout this chapter, I have drawn out some of the uses to which Paul’s homiliary was put, when Carolingian churches copied and adapted his work through creating new manu­script books. These considerations are the foundation for my further discussion of how Paul’s homiliary might have been used in the Carolingian period for such activities as liturgical reading, preaching, or study, among many other potential uses. What I hope to have shown already, however, is how the traditional focus of the secondary literature upon whether Paul’s text was used for reading or preaching or study is severely limited and does not take into consideration the central and nuanced place of the book and book production in the churches of the Carolingian period.

6.7. Private Study and Meditation I shall now consider those potential uses of Paul’s homiliary with which scholars have usually been preoccupied. My previous chapter suggested some of the ways Paul’s text was suitable for theo­logical study, teaching, and preaching, as well as for inculcating the virtues. But there is a variety of evidence to consider on this topic. 6.7.1. Theo­logical Writing

One method of addressing the question of whether and how Paul’s work was used for study would involve examining the works of individual Carolingian theo­logians. In this way, one could answer the question of whether the theo­ logical elite of the Frankish kingdoms were familiar with Paul’s collection. Perhaps they used it for private edification and when writing theo­logical treatises, sermons, or biblical commentaries. For example, Clare Woods has suggested that Rabanus Maurus used Paul’s homiliary when writing his own homilies, given his interaction with Paul’s sources.74 A similar method could be applied to other authors, and I have argued elsewhere that nearly every Carolingian sermon, commentary, or treatise dealing with the Feeding of the Five Thousand, the Feeding of the Four Thousand, or the Wedding at Cana evinces awareness of Bede’s homilies and comments on the relevant Gospel pericopes, a few of which were included in Paul’s homiliary.75 Carolingian authors quoted Bede word for word, abbreviated or expanded his comments, or simply rephrased him; what they did not do is ignore him. Such authors included Rabanus, Heiric and Haymo of Auxerre, Paschasius Radbertus,  74 Woods, ‘Inmaculata, Incorrupta, Intacta’, pp. 229–30.  75 Guiliano, ‘Holy Gluttons’.

225

226

c ha p te r 6

Eriugena, Sedulius Scottus, and Claudius of Turin, among others. Many of them were also familiar with the comments of Augustine and Jerome on these same passages. Does such familiarity imply that they used Paul’s work? Or was there simply a common stock of authors whose works were readily available in the major Carolingian monasteries, especially by the middle of the ninth century? It seems to me that they were probably familiar with Paul’s work, but it is difficult to answer this question conclusively by referring to the literature itself; most of these authors had access to libraries. We might be aided by looking to the manu­scripts I have already noted in previous chapters. For example, Heiric and Haymo of Auxerre likely knew Paul’s homiliary: Eberhard of Friuli had donated a copy to St Germain d’Auxerre, as I noted in Chapter 4. Regarding other Carolingian centres of learning, we also have extant copies of Paul’s homiliary (or other compelling evidence) for its presence at St Gall, Reichenau, Metz, Mainz, St Riquier, Laon, Reims, Lyons, and Tours, among many others. Although I cannot speculate much about the availability of Paul’s work outside these areas, it is clear that a great number of the monasteries and cathedrals actively engaged in Carolingian intellectual life possessed copies of Paul’s works, meaning that many of the most familiar authors of the period encountered the homiliary in their regular liturgical observations. The interpretations and doctrine of particular Church Fathers would have been lodged in their memory through repeated encounter. Whether many or most of them then went on to study or meditate on some of the texts privately seems hard to doubt. To give a brief prosopo­graphical survey, consider a handful of those places where scholars might have lived or travelled, encountering Paul’s text. The list in Table 13 is suggestive, not exhaustive or definitive. References are gathered from various sources, as well as common knowledge.76 Note that some names occur more than once, due to extensive shifts in careers or travel, but this only underlines the fact of how many figures in Carolingian intellectual life would have encountered Paul’s text again and again. There is a network of connections that likely aided in its dissemination. I have not included the names of every monk in a monastery or every member of the royal family or household.77 Note also that I have not even included every ‘court’ of Carolingian rulers, but only those where there is reason to believe that Paul’s homiliary was known

 76 I have been helped a great deal by Hildebrandt, The External School in Carolingian Society for her substantial survey of the education and travel of scholars; see e.g. pp. 12, 23, 45, 75, 79, 81, 89, 112. Cf. Goldberg, Struggle for Empire, pp. 166–77; Contreni, The Cathedral School of Laon from 850 to 930; Raaijmakers, The Making of the Monastic Community of Fulda; Nelson, ‘Was Charlemagne’s Court a Courtly Society?’; Airlie, ‘The Palace of Memory’; Innes, ‘“A Place of Discipline”’; Airlie, ‘Bonds of Power and Bonds of Association at the Court of Louis the Pious’; Depreux, Prosopo­graphie de l’entourage de Louis le Pieux.  77 E.g. the royal women at and connected to the courts, and various other dependents. See Nelson, ‘Women at the Court of Charlemagne’; Nelson, ‘Aachen as a Place of Power’, pp. 223, 232–33.

TRADIMUS

and used: I exclude those of Charles the Bald and Lothar I, at least for now, although the witness linked with Compiègne raises some questions about the former.78 I also do not mean to imply that the courts were wholly stationary locations or places of permanent residence for those listed in Table 13.79 But they were undoubtedly political and religious centres, as well as sources of patronage, made up of ‘the king and his family and the personnel around them’, who, moreover, shaped the customs, mores, and opportunities of those associated with them, including their religious observances.80 6.7.2. Study and Annotation

Although many of the Carolingian intellectual elite were probably familiar with Paul’s work, few witnesses to the homiliary contain significant amounts of annotation or other visible signs of use for private study. Whether this is due to an original lack of annotation or due to erasure is unclear.81 Various sorts of notes do appear on occasion, however, some of which are clearer in intent than others. Many witnesses contain ubiquitous annotations denoting the presence of biblical quotations, for example.82 Other annotations sum up lessons in the text. Where Bede argues that Peter’s reception of the ‘keys of the kingdom’ was on behalf of all the disciples, a note in BLB, MS Aug. perg. 15, fol. 159r, states: ‘unus pro omnibus. ita quod Petro dominus respondit’ (One for all, so the Lord answered Peter).83 At least ten similar annotations appear in BnF, MS lat. 16819.84 Some of the annotations in this manu­script simply note material for future consultation or study, such as ‘utilia’ (useful) (fol. 59r). Others condense the point of a particular homily into a pithy phrase, such as ‘Opus de opifice: de creatore creatura’ (The work from the worker: from the creator, a creature) (fol. 26r).85 Still others explain how something might be the case; for example, how Christ could be born of a virgin: ‘quia scilic& cooperator hui’ natiuitatis spc scs est’ (namely, because the one working with her for his nativity was the Holy Spirit) (fol. 23r).

 78 As I noted in a previous chapter, and I hope to address at greater length in a future article.  79 Airlie, ‘The Palace of Memory’, p. 9 notes 150 separate palatia.  80 Airlie, ‘The Palace of Memory’, p. 3; See also McKitterick, ‘The Palace School of Charles the Bald’; Innes, ‘“A Place of Discipline”’.  81 Erasure is occasionally obvious, however, as in BLB, MS Aug. perg. 15, fols 38v–41r; Manchester, John Rylands Library, MS 12, fols 42v–48v, 93r–99v; Darmstadt, Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek, Hs. 523 (W Germany, s. x), fol. 50r; or Co­logny, MS CB 128, fols 15r–16v, 20v–21r, 120v–121r.  82 E.g. Reims, Bibliothèque Carnegie, MS 296.2, fol. 40v; Troyes, Médiathèque du Grand Troyes, MS 159, fols 25r, 168v–171r.  83 Similarly, e.g., BLB, MS Aug. perg. 19, fol. 74r.  84 There may be more: my consultation of this manu­script was left incomplete, due to the incredible size and complexity of its contents.  85 PD I:20, De natale domini (GPD I:19), Maximus II, Homilia 11 (PL, 57:243–48). Near the text ‘Today, Mary bears, but gives birth to her Creator.’

227

228

c ha p te r 6 Table 13. Circulation of intellectual elite in places where PD was known

COURT OF CHARLEMAGNE Paul the Deacon Alcuin Rabanus Maurus (educated) Hincmar of Reims (educated) Hilduin (educated by Alcuin) Grimald (educated by Alcuin, visitor) Fredegisus of Tours Einhard Ansegis Gerold Theodulf of Orléans (visitor) Hildebald of Co­logne (archchaplain) Benedict of Aniane Wala Adalhard of Corbie Riculf of Mains COURT OF LOUIS THE PIOUS Irmengard Judith Louis the German Lothar Charles the Bald Benedict of Aniane Einhard Thegan Hilduin of St Denis (chaplain) Hincmar of Reims (educated, visitor) Adalung of Lorsch and Saint Vaast (abbot, frequently attested visitor) Ansegis (exactor operum regalium, missus, later abbot of Saint Wandrille) Helisachar of Saint-Aubin, Angers (chancellor) Claudius of Turin Fredugisus of Tours Drogo of Metz (archchaplain) Freculf of Lisieux

COURT OF LOUIS THE PIOUS cont. The Astronomer Nibridius of Narbonne Ebbo of Reims (visitor) Agobard of Lyons (visitor) Walahfrid Strabo Gerward (librarian) Hucbert of Meaux (‘praecentor’) Odo of Orléans Gerold (chaplain, 840s) COURT OF LOUIS THE GERMAN Gozbald of Würzburg-Niederaltaich (chaplain, advisor, abbot-bishop) Baturich of Regensburg-S. Emmeran (visitor, advisor, bishop) Ratleig of Seligenstadt (visitor, advisor, abbot) Grimald of St Gall (chaplain, chancellor, abbot) Erchanbert of Freising-Kempten (visitor, advisor, bishop) Rabanus Maurus (visitor, advisor, abbot, bishop, archbishop) Ermanrich of Passau (chaplain, later bishop) Walahfrid Strabo (abbot, occasional missi, e.g. 849) Guntram of Solhofen, nephew of Rabanus Maurus (chaplain) Ebbo of Reims/Hildesheim (visitor, bishop (deposed, reappointed)) Baldo of Salzburg (teacher, later chan­ cellor to Louis’s son Carloman) AUXERRE Eriugena (visitor?) Haymo Heiric Remigius

TRADIMUS

FULDA Radger (abbot) Rabanus Maurus (oblate, monk, abbot) Gottschalk (oblate, monk) Grimald (educated (?)) Engilberht and Hartmuot (educated by Rabanus) Servatus Lupus (educated by Rabanus) Otfrid of Weißenburg (educated by Rabanus) Gozbald of Niederaltaich (perhaps educated) Rudolf of Fulda Brun Candidus (monk, author) Reccheo Modestus Hatto (librarian, abbot) Thioto (abbot) Sigihard (abbot) LAON Eriugena Hincmar of Laon (bishop) Martin Hibernensis (master) Manno (educated) Bernard (educated, master, dean) Adelelm (educated, dean, bishop) Hucbald of Saint Amand (visitor?) Heiric of Auxerre (visitor or teacher, briefly) Emmo of Saint Remigius (educated, monk) Liuddo (educated, deacon?) Rodolfus (bishop) Dido (educated, bishop) Various Irish monks and travellers Roric (son of Charles the Simple, Bishop of Laon)

REICHENAU Tatto (teacher) Haito (monk, abbot, Bishop of Basel) Odilleoz (monk, brother of Haito, educated at Tours under Alcuin; returned with books) Walahfrid Strabo (abbot) Reginbert (librarian, copyist) Gottschalk (visitor) Wettin Ratramnus (visitor?) Ermenrich (visitor in 849 for learning under Engilberht and Hartmuot) REIMS Hincmar Hucbald of St Amand ST GALL Waldo (abbot, before St Denis) Gozbert (abbot, 830s) Grimald (841, donated his books) Moengal (Irish monk, school master) Engilberht and Hartmut (teachers in 840s) Liuthart (monk, librarian (872)) Notker the Stammerer (oblate, monk, librarian (890), 840–912) Ratpert (oblate, monk, d. 890) Waldramm (monk, librarian (903–09)) ST RIQUIER Paschasius Radbertus (monk in self-imposed exile c. 854–59) ST WANDRILLE Ansegis TOURS Alcuin (abbot) Rabanus Maurus (educated) Odilleoz (educated) Fredegisus (abbot)

229

23 0

c ha p te r 6

Some other marginalia are present in manu­scripts of Paul’s homiliary, but many of them are illegible, smudged, erased, or otherwise damaged by time or interventions like the trimming of folios. A few manu­scripts also contain some small drawings or doodles, which are interesting, but not considered here, as they cannot be conclusively dated to the Carolingian period.86 This is largely the extent of marginalia that might denote private study. What they reveal is that, at least in some places such as Compiègne and the unknown centre that produced BLB, MSS Aug. perg. 14 and 15, homiliary manu­scripts were marked up for private study. Although no extant manu­script is heavily annotated, several witnesses exhibit signs that Paul’s compilation elicited notes, comments, and even drawings regarding the meaning of the texts involved. 6.7.3. Private Study Certain

The combined witness of this manu­script evidence, a notice about the writings of major Carolingian theo­logians, and the realization that the homiliary was present in most Carolingian intellectual centres suggests that it was indeed a source for private study and meditation. Given the relative lack of annotation in extant manu­scripts, it seems possible to conclude that much private study involving homiliaries would have left little mark. After all, these were liturgical texts, and marginal annotations could be distracting to the reader in a public service. Not all study necessitated annotation. But these remarks may settle whether the collection was a common source for study and private meditation in the Carolingian period.

6.8. Preaching and Regulatory Material (Capitularies, Councils, Statutes, Rules) The use of Paul’s homiliary for preaching is a disputed question among historians, as I noted in the Introduction. A variety of evidence bears on this question, and I shall survey it here, considering regulatory material first, before turning to further manu­script evidence. It is well known that a variety of regulatory material bears on the question of the use of homilies in preaching, much of it being fairly clear and positive: homiliaries were used for this purpose.87 I shall not spend much time reviewing this question here. As I have mentioned, the capitulary material has been dealt with in a satisfactory manner by Rosamond McKitterick, Thomas Amos, and James McCune.88 Moreover, two studies on the life of Carolingian clergy  86 E.g. BLB, MS Aug. perg. 14, fol. 68v; Manchester, John Rylands Library, MS 12, fol. 83v.  87 For a brief overview, see McCune, ‘The Preacher’s Audience’, pp. 283, 285–87, 289, 294–99.  88 See, e.g. McKitterick, The Frankish Church and the Carolingian Reforms, pp. 80–84; Amos, ‘The Origin and Nature of the Carolingian Sermon’, pp. 139–76; McCune, ‘An Edition and Study of Select Sermons from the Carolingian Sermonary of Salzburg’, pp. 81–85.

TRADIMUS

take account of such material as well. Carine van Rhijn’s Shepherds of the Lord underlines just how commonplace it was for bishops to mandate that their clergy teach their people well, understand patristic doctrine, and own the proper texts to do so (i.e. homiliaries).89 Further details on this point may be found in Stephen Ling’s more focused study on how the lives of clergy were regulated in particular areas of Francia.90 There are, however, two fresh approaches to this question that I should like to suggest. The first concerns paying attention to those regions and dioceses in which church councils or diocesan bishops required the use of homiliaries in public preaching. It can be seen whether such regulatory material effected the production of homiliaries in those regions, which might then tell us about preaching practices.91 For example, James McCune notes that a series of texts from Freising bear on preaching, two of which require clergy to use homiliaries in preaching.92 Notably, there are at least two manu­scripts from Freising that combine to make a single witness to the summer portion of Paul’s homiliary, as well as several fragments.93 It is quite possible that these homiliaries were used for popular preaching, given the episcopal statutes. In Regensburg, around 803, Bishop Adalwin composed a document for the interrogation of the faithful, including priests, known in its contemporary edition as the Interrogationes examinationis. Among the questions to be asked of priests is ‘Homelias orthodoxorum patrum quomodo intellegitis vel alios instruere sciatis?’ (How do you understand the homilies of the orthodox Fathers or how you know [what] to instruct others?).94 Such a question assumes that priests were familiar with or possessed copies of the Church Fathers, and their knowledge of patristic preaching is tied to their ability to teach their people. Once again, two of our earliest witnesses come from a diocese with a requirement of using homiliaries in preaching.95 BSB, Clm 4533 and 4534 (s. ix3/4) were produced in an unknown area of southwest Germany, but it seems possible that they too had been used for

Van Rhijn, Shepherds of the Lord, pp. 58–63, 84–85, 107–10, 156. Ling, ‘The Cloister and Beyond’. Diesenberger, ‘Introduction’, p. 7, notes the potential impetus of such regulations. McCune, ‘An Edition and Study of Select Sermons from the Carolingian Sermonary of Salzburg’, pp. 84–85. The Capitula Frisigensia prima, c. XII includes ‘homilies for preaching on Sundays’ among the texts that clergy must learn to use. MGH, Capit. episc., iii, ed. by Pokorny, p. 205: ‘Omelias dominicis diebus et solemnitatibus dierum ad praedicandum canonem’. The Capitula Frisigensia secunda, c. VII, likely from Atto of Freising’s time (783–810), also asks priests ‘to learn’ homilies for preaching on every feast day. MGH, Capit. episc., iii, ed. by Pokorny, p. 211: ‘Ut […] omelias diebus singulis festivitatum discant.’  93 Bamberg, Staatsbibliothek, MS Patr. 155 (B.I.3) + BSB, Clm 6264a (Freising, s. ix2/4); and Graz, Steiermärkisches Landesarchiv, Cod. 894 + Linz, Bundesstaatliche Studienbibliothek, MS 612 + Reichersberg, Stiftsbibliothek, no shelfmark (Freising, s. ix2/4).  94 MGH, Capit. episc., iii, ed. by Pokorny, p. 215.  95 BSB, Clm 17194 (Bavaria, s. ix1/2) and BSB, Clm 14380 (Regensburg, s. ix1/3), mentioned above.  89  90  91  92

231

23 2

c ha p te r 6

preaching, given the emphasis on the use of homiliaries in the general area. The same might be true of other texts mentioned earlier.96 Bishop Haito of Basel’s Capitula include two notices of relevance to us here, including a requirement for his priests to use and possess homiliaries.97 Without such books, they are not even suitable to be called priests, he says, but are like the blind leading the blind (cf. Matt. 15. 14; Luke 6. 39). Haito was Abbot of Reichenau at the same time he was Bishop of Basel, and, though many PD witnesses from the abbey postdate his abbacy and episcopacy, it is unsurprising that multiple PD witnesses were produced or used at Reichenau, perhaps even during his lifetime, including BLB, MS Aug. perg. 29 and Co­logny, MS CB 128, mentioned now several times. The area where the most PD homiliaries were produced is in the dioceses north of the Loire. This does not seem like an accident to me. The 813 reform Council of Tours, c. 17.24 suggested that all bishops have homilies prepared for educating their ‘subjects’, homilies that they should translate into the vernacular.98 At least twenty PD manu­scripts were produced or used in the area addressed by this reform council during the Carolingian period.99 These manu­scripts  96 Fulda, MS AA 12 (SW Germany, s. ix3/3), along with BLB, MS Aug. perg. 14 and 15 (SW Germany, s. ix1/2). To this list, I would also add the fragments in BSB, Clm 29471 (1) + Hamburg, Museum für Kunst und Gewerbe, no shelfmark (Benediktbeuern, s. ix2/4).  97 First, Capitula 19.9 ‘That something should not be read nor sung except those things, which are of divine authority and the authority of the orthodox fathers has sanctioned.’ MGH, Capit. episc., iii, ed. by Pokorny, p. 216: ‘Nono decimo, ut aliud in ecclesia non legatur aut cantetur nisi ea, quae auctoritatis divinae sunt et patrum orthodoxorum sanxit auctoritas.’ Second, clerics cannot lack ‘homilies covering the circle of the year, fit for Sundays and each feast’ (the phrase recalls the Epistola Generalis). Capitula 6.2, MGH, Capit. episc., iii, ed. by Pokorny p. 211: ‘Sexto, quae ipsis sacerdotibus necessaria sunt ad discendum,… homeliae per circulum anni dominicis diebus et singulis festivitatibus aptae. Ex quibus omnibus, si unum defuerit, sacerdotis nomen vix in eo constabit, quia valde periculosae sunt evangelicae minae, quibus dicitur: ‘Si caecus caeco ducatum praestet, ambo in foveam cadunt.’  98 Concilium Turonense, ed. by Werminghoff, p. 288: ‘Visum est unanimitati nostrae, ut quilibet episcopus habeat omelias continentes necessarias ammonitiones, quibus subiecti erudiantur, id est de fide catholica, prout capere possint, de perpetua retributione bonorum et aeterna damnatione malorum, de resurrectione quoque futura et ultimo iudicio et quibus operibus possit promereri beata vita quibusve excludi. Et ut easdem omelias quisque aperte transferre studeat in rusticam Romanam linguam aut Thiotiscam, quo facilius cuncti possint intellegere quae dicuntur.’  99 Freiburg im Breisgau, Universitätsbibliothek, Hs. 483.6 (around St Amand, s. ixinc); Düsseldorf, Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek, fragment K06:011 (W Francia (Tours?), s. ix1/4–2/4); BnF, MS lat. 11699 (NE Francia, s. ix1/2); BnF, MS NAL 2322 (Tours, s. ix2/4); BnF, MS lat. 12404 (Tours, s. ixmed); Douai, La Bibliothèque Marceline Desbordes-Valmore, fragments in MSS 255, 275, 314 (Francia, perhaps the region of Paris, s. ix); BnF, MS lat. 9604 (Tours, s. ixmed, for St Germain d’Auxerre); Cambrai, Médiathèque d’agglomération de Cambrai, MS 546 (Arras, s. ix‑3/3); Saint Omer, Bibliothèque d’Agglomération, MS 202 (NE Francia, s. x4/4); Laon, BM, fragments in MS 468 (NE Francia, probably St Bertin, s. ix4/4; provenance Laon Cathedral, s. x); Douai, La Bibliothèque Marceline DesbordesValmore, fragments in MSS 47, 306, 345 (NE Francia, s. ixex); Leiden, Bibliotheek der Rijksuniversiteit, fragments in MS Voss. lat. F.4.A (NE Francia, s. ix4/4); Freiburg im

TRADIMUS

represent roughly one quarter of the extant Carolingian witnesses to Paul’s homiliary. It seems no accident that so many homiliaries were produced in an area committed to preaching patristic texts. A number of these homiliaries were admittedly produced after 813, but it is not unreasonable to suppose that the Council created an environment (and, eventually, an embedded practice) of using homiliary manu­scripts in this way. At the very least, these manu­scripts provide a tangible basis for speaking of attempts at following the prescriptions of the council in the area: Bishops were expected to own homiliaries to use in preaching, and witnesses to PD were indeed produced for over a century throughout the areas of Francia addressed by the Council of Tours. It is possible that homiliaries were also used by clergy other than bishops, of course, but I propose starting with this baseline. In comparison, the reform Councils of Arles and of Mainz did not produce any directions for clerics or bishops in the dioceses of Southern Francia and Germany that impinge directly on the use of homiliaries. Given the relative distribution of homiliary production, highlighted above and in Chapter 4, this point is quite significant. Only three PD witnesses were produced in the area addressed by Arles.100 The dioceses addressed by the Council of Mainz represent a different case, since some episcopal statutes in Bavaria likely helped the dissemination of homiliary texts in areas addressed by the reform council, as I have already noted. But I can only speculate about how often homiliaries were used for preaching in Germany outside of Bavaria. Six were produced, however, in that area.101 A second fruitful avenue of research involves Chrodegang of Metz’s Regula canonicorum. This text was written to regulate the life of canonical clergy at the cathedral of Metz. I am interested here in its stipulations regarding the reading or preaching of patristic homilies to lay people, saving discussion of its liturgical requirements for a little later. Chapter 34 of the Regula mentions poor people living in the area of the cathedral who are dependent on the chapter Breisgau, Universitätsbibliothek, Hs. 1122.1 (Francia, s. ix/x); New Haven, CT, Yale Uni­ ver­sity, Beinecke Rare Book and Manu­script Library, fragments in MS 523 (Francia, s. ix/x); Reims, Bibliothèque Carnegie, MS 116, fragments 15a–c and 16 (Saint-Thierry, s. x); Reims, Bibliothèque Carnegie, MS 296.2 (Reims, s. x1/2; provenance St Thierry); Cambrai, Médiathèque d’agglomération de Cambrai, MS 365 (Cambrai Cathedral, s. x1/2); BnF, MS lat. 1897 (Tours, s. x; early medi­eval provenance: St Martial, Limoges); Angers, Médiathèque Toussaint, MS 235 (226) (W Francia, probably St Serge, s. x); Oxford, Corpus Christi College, MS 255A (NE Francia, s. x); Chartres, Médiathèque l’Apostrophe, MS 57 (84) (W Francia, perhaps Chartres Cathedral or Saint-Père de Chartres, s. x).   100 Manchester, John Rylands Library, MS 12 (Luxeuil, s. ix2/4); Troyes, Médiathèque du Grand Troyes, MS 159 (Moutier-la-Celle (?), s. ix or x); Avignon, Archives Départementales, MS 2.G.94 (Provence, a foundation dedicated to St Pons, s. x).   101 London, British Library, Add. MS 16960 (W Germany, s. ix2/4); Düsseldorf, Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek, frag. K16:Z04/04A (Mainz, s. ix1/2); BLB, Fragment Aug. 83 (probably Mainz, s. ix2/4); Wolfenbüttel, Herzog August Bibliothek, fragments in Cod. 365 Helmst. (Mainz, s. ix1/2); Darmstadt, Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek, Hs. 523 (W Germany, s. x); Basel, Öffentliche Bibliothek der Universität, MS N.I.6, no 10a–b (Germany, s. xmed).

233

23 4

c ha p te r 6

for material and spiritual support (the matricularii). Chrodegang states that they should come to the church at the close of Terce every other Saturday. During a service, someone will read to them a homily from the Church Fathers, meant to ‘edify the listeners and teach them the way of salvation and how they might arrive, with the help of God, to eternal life’.102 After this, they hear a homily from one of the priests, commenting on the text.103 At the very least, this compelling requirement suggests that poverty-stricken lay people near certain cathedrals or houses of canons would regularly hear a patristic text and an explanation of it. More research must be done to establish the influence of this particular requirement in Chrodegang’s Regula, considering especially how widely the Regula was disseminated and used. At the moment, only three Carolingian manu­scripts of the original rule are known, one from Metz, one from the border of East Francia/West Germany, and one from Western Francia (perhaps near Tours).104 It is the expanded Regula and sections of the Regula incorporated into the Institutio canonicorum Aquisgranensis that were more widespread,105 and these versions did not include c. 34’s requirement regarding pastoral care for the poor.106 Sadly, then, until further research is completed, I can only say on the basis of Chrodegang’s Regula that it seems plausible that the PD witness from Metz was used to preach to the poor, although it is possible that other witnesses from cathedrals or houses of canons were used in this way.107

6.9. Preaching and the Manu­script Evidence Throughout this section, I have noted that a great deal of regulatory or legal material requires the use of homiliaries in preaching or, at the least, the possession of homiliaries by bishops and priests. I have also shown   102 Chrodegang, Regula canonicorum, c. 34, ed. by Schmitz, p. 24. See also Claussen, The Reform of the Frankish Church, pp. 107–13.   103 A similar instruction is included, as James McCune notes, in the Expositio antiquae liturgiae Gallicanae, a Merovingian text copied in Autun, BM, MS 184 (s. ix). McCune, ‘An Edition and Study of Select Sermons from the Carolingian Sermonary of Salzburg’, pp. 30–31. See Expositio antiquae liturgiae Gallicanae, ed. by Ratcliff, p. 8: ‘DE OMELIAS; Homelias autem sanctorum que leguntur pro sola praedicatione ponuntur ut quicquid Propheta Apostolus uel Euangelium monuit hoc doctor uel pastor ecclesiae apercione sermone populo praedicet.’   104 Bern, Burgerbibliothek, MS 289 (Metz, s. viii/ixin), fols 1r–15v; Leiden, Bibliotheek der Rijksuniversiteit, MS Voss. lat. F.94 (W France, possibly near Tours, s. ix2/3), fols 8r–16v; BAV, MS Pal. lat. 555 (German-French border, s. ix1/2).   105 See the illuminating discussion in Barrow, The Clergy in the Medi­eval World, pp. 83–89. See also Ling, ‘The Cloister and Beyond’.   106 Langefeld, The Old English Version of the Enlarged Rule of Chrodegang, pp. 31–64, esp. pp. 31–38. I have to thank Stephen Ling for bringing it to my attention that the expanded versions and the Aachen institutes did not include this section.   107 Langefeld, The Old English Version of the Enlarged Rule of Chrodegang, pp. 10–11.

TRADIMUS

that production of PD appears to be higher in those regions where such use and possession was mandated. The material from Chrodegang’s Regula canonicorum is also significant. Paul’s homiliary was undoubtedly used for preaching in a great variety of contexts throughout Francia, unless we are to assume that communities doggedly refused to follow capitularies, conciliar decisions, and episcopal instruction, yet enthusiastically copied Paul’s text. But is there further manu­script evidence that bears on this question? At this stage, it is unclear to me that there is: few features of the extant manu­scripts would highlight particular copies as ‘preaching collections’, as opposed to homiliaries used for liturgical reading.108 Of course, I argued strongly in Chapter 4 that one significant obstacle to the swift dissemination of the homiliary was its size: it would take significant material and temporal investment to create the two volumes of Paul’s homiliary. However, as I have shown in this chapter, a great number of the extant manu­ scripts have been abbreviated in some fashion, which would have mitigated the problem of size. If a community or individual wanted a copy, but could not afford a full one, they had options. They could select particular material from Paul’s homiliary, adapting it to their needs and abilities, or they could acquire the homiliary slowly over time. A number of the extant manu­scripts are quite large, which would tempt many to call them ‘display copies’, perhaps opposed to a small, portable preaching text. However, if preaching were done within the context of liturgy, a lectern or some kind of assistant would usually hold the text. There are no real barriers to seeing large manu­scripts as tools for preaching; such a criterion is not applied to most Bibles and lectionaries, after all, the pre-eminent basis for preaching. But some of the extant manu­scripts would even meet the requirements of small size. Communities could make smaller collections, if that is what they desired. I noted the two abbreviated homiliaries produced at St Gall around the turn of the tenth century: one of them, Stuttgart, Württembergische Landesbibliothek, MS HB VII 57, is quite light, and its dimensions (220mm × 165mm) are smaller than a sheet of A4 (297mm × 210 mm). Preachers could also make notes or memorize particular interpretations that they then put into their own words (perhaps another use for the annotations in BnF, MS lat. 16819).109 The manu­script evidence may demonstrate few positive signs of preaching, but it presents no barriers: Paul’s homiliary was used in preaching.

  108 See Hall, ‘The Early Medi­eval Sermon’, p. 207–08, on this difficulty with all medi­eval sermon collections.   109 Cf. Rabanus Maurus, De institutione clericorum libri tres, c. 36, quoted in McCune, ‘The Preacher’s Audience’, p. 289: ‘If [preachers] select something composed eloquently and wisely by others, commit it to memory and bring it forth to the people […] they are not doing anything inappropriate’.

235

2 36

c ha p te r 6

6.10. Liturgical Reading The homiliary was clearly intended for use in the liturgy. Its preface speaks explicitly of providing readings for the Night Office. In relation to this topic, scholars have usually only questioned whether this fact implies that the text was used only by monks. Such a conclusion is unnecessary, as I noted earlier. The Night Office was part of the canonical hours observed by monks, canons, and the clergy in general, along with devout laypeople such as Charlemagne, Einhard and his household, and Dhuoda (and, presumably, her son).110 There is no reason to conclude that the text would only be used by monks, and I have already noted that several extant manu­scripts were produced or used in cathedral churches, not to mention the church of St Mary in Aachen. But how did Paul’s work fit into the Night Office? And should we expect to find evidence of how it was used in the extant manu­scripts, such as liturgical marginalia? I shall address these questions in a brief survey of liturgical reading from the sixth to twelfth centuries, before I turn to some manu­script evidence. From at least the beginning of the sixth century, patristic texts were read in an evolving structure of daily prayer.111 The Regula Benedicti is the most important text from this early period, describing what sort of texts were read and when. It states that ‘Codices autem legantur in vigiliis divinae auctoritatis tam veteris testamenti quam nobi sed e expositiones earum quae a nominatis et orthodoxis catholicis patribut factae sunt’ (Books of divine authority should be read, from the Old Testament and the New, but also the explanations of them, made by the renowned and orthodox Fathers).112 In Benedict’s practice, throughout the winter months, one ‘nocturn’ of three biblical or patristic lections was read on normal days, followed by a recitation by heart from one of Paul’s epistles. In the summer, only a single reading from the Old Testament was to be recited on normal days and that from heart.113 On Sundays and feast days throughout the year, the situation was different. Three nocturns of four readings were read, with the final nocturn composed of readings from the New Testament; after this set of readings and the singing of the Te Deum laudamus, the abbot read from the Gospel.114   110 Einhard, Vita Karoli 3:26, trans. by Thorpe, pp. 79–80; Einhard, The History of the Translation of the Blessed Martyrs, c. 2, trans. by Wendell, pp. 22, 25; cf. also Translatio c. 3, pp. 40–43 for observation of the Night Office by Einhard, the clergy, and the lay poor (or homeless) in Mulinheim, and c. 4, pp. 53–54 for two miracles worked during the Night Office on two lame men; Dhuoda, Liber manualis 2:3–4, ed. and trans. by Thiébaux, esp. 2:3, pp. 80–81. Lay observation of the canonical hours in the early Middle Ages is a topic that deserves fuller treatment.   111 Palazzo, A History of Liturgical Books, pp. 152–56; Martimort, Les Lectures liturgiques et les livres, pp. 78–80; Gatch, Preaching and Theo­logy in Anglo-Saxon England, p. 30; Amos, ‘The Origin and Nature of the Carolingian Sermon’, pp. 196–97.   112 The Rule of Saint Benedict, 9:8, ed. and trans. by Venarde, pp. 58–61.   113 The Rule of Saint Benedict, 9:5 and 10:2, ed. and trans. by Venarde, pp. 58–59, 62–63.   114 The Rule of Saint Benedict, 11, ed. and trans. by Venarde pp. 64–67.

TRADIMUS

In these instructions, Benedict provides guidance on the number and type of readings, but it is notable that he does not define the length. Additionally, a fair amount of discretion seems involved in choosing the sorts of readings, save at specific points in the liturgy. We have reason to believe that the observation of the Office amongst regular clergy following ‘Roman’ custom was much the same in this period. Only the number of readings differed: three or four on regular days, nine on Sundays and feast days.115 This Roman practice would later be described as ‘secular’ use, and Benedictine and secular use would eventually become the ‘two main forms of the Divine Office […] attested in the Medi­eval West’.116 It is not entirely clear that there were only two forms in the Carolingian period, however. Most of the texts composed or regularly transmitted in the period are quite vague. For example, Isidore of Seville’s De ecclesiasticis officiis I.22 explains the origin of the Night Office and the other canonical hours, but does not mention biblical or patristic readings: only the singing of psalms and prayer. Ordines Romani XIII and XIV describe what sorts of texts were read in the liturgy (biblical and patristic) at what times of the year; they do not speak of the number or length of readings during individual hours of prayer. Chrodegang’s Regula canonicorum is even vaguer on such topics, leaving the length of readings to the discretion of the bishop.117 Meanwhile, the Aachen institutes for canons simply cited Isidore. The amount of discretion left to those presiding over liturgy may also be illustrated with an amusing story from Notker’s Gesta Karoli; the anecdote also reveals other Carolingian reading practices. Notker claims that neither the lectors nor the precise readings in Charlemagne’s church in Aachen were told to anyone in advance. Rather, everyone in the chapel’s choir was in danger of being selected to read in the midst of the service, and they were expected to remember where the reader had left off before them (apparently, even from the service the night before). They had to find the beginning of the reading on their own. Then, while lectors were reading, Charlemagne would cough when he was ready for one of them to stop, even if it were in the middle of a phrase. As a result, Notker assures us: All those in that place became excellent readers, even if they did not understand what they read. No new arrival, not even if he were famous, dared to enter the Emperor’s choir, unless he could read and chant.118   115 Martimort, Les Lectures liturgiques et les livres, p. 72.   116 See Billett, ‘Sermones ad diem pertinentes’, pp. 340–42. His tables (pp. 367–68) are especially useful, and the only ones in publication that are currently accurate. See also Billett, The Divine Office in Anglo-Saxon England; and Billett, ‘The Liturgy of the “Roman” Office in England from the Conversion to the Conquest’.   117 Chrodegang, Regula canonicorum, c. 4–7; Claussen, The Reform of the Frankish Church, pp. 69–70.   118 Notker, Gesta Karoli 7, trans. by Thorpe, pp. 100–101 (with slight adjustment). Cf. Einhard, Vita Karoli 26, trans. by Thorpe, p. 80 on Charlemagne’s concern for proper chanting and reading in his chapel.

237

23 8

c ha p te r 6

Among the signs of the imperial choir’s expertise, Notker mentions that they did not mark the end of their reading with a piece of wax or even by pressing their fingernail into the parchment.119 Whether or not there is a genuine historical core behind this story of an ideal chapel choir ruled over by a liturgically tyrannical emperor, Notker’s anecdote gives us a sense of an extreme form of discretion given to someone presiding over liturgy. But he also shows us what may have been a common practice: marking the ends of readings with impermanent or innocuous signs that could nevertheless be seen by a reader who was looking for them (wax, fingernail marks). He does not discuss the marking of readings with ink. Notker’s story suggests that we should not expect to find liturgical marginalia in Carolingian PD witnesses, especially not in St Gall witnesses. This only heightens the problem, though. How Paul’s text was used becomes something of a quandary, beyond its general location in the Night Office, unless one were to search all of the Carolingian manu­scripts for nearly invisible signs. Certain basic questions would remain unclear. For example, given that most of PD’s texts were included for Sundays and feast days, should we conclude that Benedictines put the homiliary’s readings into one of their first two nocturns, into the final one, or into all of them? And how might canons, regular clergy, and lay people use the text? Jesse Billett has noted one common, albeit later, tradition: biblical readings were read in the first nocturn (usually in accord with a lectionary like Ordo Romanus XIII or XIV), patristic sermons in the second, and patristic homilies on the Gospels in the third.120 A justification for this practice appears as early as Hildemar of Corbie’s Commentary on the Rule of Benedict (c. 845),121 and the custom was especially widespread from the twelfth century onwards. But practice was not yet uniform in the Carolingian period,122 and contemporary literature gives us little guidance as to what to expect, beyond a diversity of practices, the ongoing practice of lectio continua, discretion left to those organizing liturgy, and the occasional use of innocuous or temporary signs. Billett suggests that Paul’s homiliary may have helped end such practices, by standardizing the practice of reading Gospel exegesis in the Night Office, particularly in the third nocturn. But is that what we can expect to see in the extant manu­scripts?

  119 Notker, Gesta Karoli, trans. by Thorpe, p. 100.   120 Billett, ‘Sermones ad diem pertinentes’, pp. 341–45.   121 Hildemar, Expositio Regulae 9.8. See Mittermüller’s edition and English translation online at The Hildemar Project, ed. by Diem and others, .   122 Billett, ‘Sermones ad diem pertinentes’, pp. 341–42.

TRADIMUS

6.11. Liturgical Reading and Manu­script Evidence Sadly, most of the Carolingian witnesses are of little direct help in providing evidence for liturgical reading. They are remarkably ‘clean’, as I noted above regarding other kinds of annotations. In some ways, this point should not surprise us, as Notker’s anecdote shows. Only a small handful of witnesses contain marginalia: • Troyes, Médiathèque du Grand Troyes, MS 159 (Moutier-la-Celle (?), s. ix or x) • Manchester, John Rylands Library, MS 12 (Luxeuil, s. ix2/4) • BnF, MS NAL 2322 (Tours, s. ix2/4) • BnF, MS lat. 12404 (Tours, s. ixmed) • CSG 432 (St Gall, s. ix2/4) • BLB, MS Aug. perg. 29 (Reichenau, s. ix2/4) • CSG 430 and 431 (St Gall, 850x872) • CSG 434 (St Gall, 872x883)123 • CSG 433 (St Gall, 883x912) • Saint-Omer, Bibliothèque d’Agglomération, MS 202 (NE Francia, probably Saint-Bertin, s. x4/4) • Angers, Médiathèque Toussaint, MS 235 (226) (W Francia, probably Saint-Serge, s. x) • BLB, MS Aug. perg. 37 (Reichenau, s. x) This list may seem promising, but all of the liturgical marginalia in these manu­scripts represent later additions. They are not original. The marginalia in BnF, MS lat. 12404 and Angers, MS 235 are clearly eleventh-century and may be excluded from consideration. The rest are difficult to date palaeo­ graphically: they may be tenth-century markings, but they are isolated samples, the marginalia are not written especially formally, and, with only one exception, the liturgical marginalia themselves consist solely of Roman numerals: ‘I’s, ‘V’s, or ‘X’s, in accord with readings I–IX or I–XII. These are the simplest strokes a scribe knew and do little to betray individuality. The only exception is in BnF, MS NAL 2322, where readings appear to be marked by successive crosses. The majority of these marginalia are thus of unclear value, without much further study. In general, however, they give evidence of a variety of differing assignments.124 For example, the marginalia in Saint-Omer, MS 202 are   123 The marginalia in CSG 430, 431, 433, and 434 were entered at the same time.   124 E.g. the marginalia in Manchester, John Rylands Library, MS 12 generally assign material to readings 9–12 in the Benedictine cursus, but there are examples of placing a homily as

239

24 0

c ha p te r 6

significant in that they generally correspond to the numbers of the ‘Roman’ or ‘secular’ cursus, not the Benedictine; this is not always the case, however. There are some Benedictine markings, which is part of the thesis of Cross and Crick that this manu­script travelled between St Bertin (a Benedictine house) and Exeter Cathedral.125 They also vary in the nocturns to which they assign material: homilies are assigned to the second or third, but never to the first nocturn. The only area where we may have an exception is St Gall. Liturgical marginalia are systematically written into CSG 430 and 431 (850x872), 434 (872x883), and 433 (883x912) in a vibrant red ink. In terms of their letterforms, the marginalia could have been written at any time 850–1050 — St Gall hands do not change drastically during that period, and I have yet to find conclusive comparanda. Yet the liturgical markings may be placed within a continuum of the monastery’s liturgical productions,126 and thus dated with relative precision. I have reviewed some of this material above, so my explanation here is brief. In the first half of the ninth century, the monastery of St Gall gathered homiliaries.127 From 850 to 883, they revised and expanded their PD witnesses, adapting Paul’s text to their liturgy and ample resources.128 They then made several special productions from c. 883 to 912, including a large volume of material for saints’ feasts and two smaller, abbreviated homiliaries; the latter two had fewer selections and, in one of the homiliaries, some shorter readings.129 From that period, homiliary production appears to have stopped until the second half of the tenth century, when St Gall produced two abbreviated homiliaries for community use: these contain many readings that are significantly shorter than those marked by the marginalia I am considering here.130 In the first half of the eleventh century, they produced a series of breviaries marked by yet shorter readings.131 That is, the total manu­script record at St Gall shows signs

  125   126   127   128   129   130

  131

readings 1–4 (fols 21v–25v; 56v–57r; 62v–64v); a sermon as readings 1–8 (fols 53r–53), when joined with a homily for the same feasts (fols 49r–52v); a sermon as 1–8 when on its own (fols 108v–111v; 119v–123v); or a homily as 1–8 (fols 61r–62r). The cross marginalia in BnF, MS NAL 2322 vary in marking anywhere from three readings to eight to nine. E.g. Cross and Crick, ‘The Manu­script’, p. 35. See the ‘secular’ cursus of 7–9 (fols 75v–82r); Benedictine cursus of 9–12 (fols 86v–93v). I presented this hypothesis initially in ‘Liturgical Marginalia in Scholarship and the Office Manu­scripts of Carolingian St Gall’. Basel, Öffentliche Bibliothek der Universität, MS B.III.2 (s. ix2/4); CSG 432 (s. ix2/4). CSG 430, 431, 434, and a missing volume, mentioned several times in this chapter and in Chapter 4. CSG 433; Basel, Öffentliche Bibliothek der Universität, MS B.IV.26; Stuttgart, Württembergische Landesbibliothek, MS HB VII 57. CSG 423 (s. xex), Homiliary, Easter–Advent; CSG 425 (s. x/xi) Homiliary, Advent–Lent. Compare (1) CSG 423, pp. 117–19, which has four prominent litterae notabiliores for the beginning of a homily, amounting to seventy-two lines of about seven words each (504 words); and (2) CSG 434, 130 lines of five words each (650 words). CSG 428 (s. x/xi), Breviary, Advent; CSG 414 (c. 1030), Breviary, Advent–Holy Saturday; CSG 387 (s. xi2/4), Breviary, Holy Saturday–Advent; CSG 413 (s. xi2/4), Breviary, Advent–Lent. Again,

TRADIMUS

of progressive abbreviation c. 912–1050, after a period of expansion (850–912). Moreover, in the later abbreviated homiliaries and in the breviaries, readings were not usually marked by marginalia but by prominent, light-orange litterae notabiliores.132 The marginalia, then, must be placed after the completion of CSG 433 (883x912), since it is the latest in the group of manu­scripts to be systematically marked for readings. They must have been entered during a period of development, when shorter readings were assigned to permanent positions in the liturgy. Yet they must also be before the radical abbreviation of the readings, the transition of St Gall rubrication from a darker red to lighter red or to a light orange,133 and the decision to mark the beginning of readings by litterae notabiliores, rather than Roman numerals. For all of these reasons, I am convinced that the marginalia in CSG 430, 431, 433, and 434 were written 912–50. What do these marginalia reveal about liturgical practice in St Gall? Assignments varied, and some markings have been erased. Nevertheless, a few patterns are evident. Homilies are normally marked 1–4 and sermons marked 1–8; however, homilies in the De sanctis collection (CSG 433) are sometimes marked to 1–12 or 1–8.134 The ends of the readings are always marked with a cross. Moreover, a good amount of the additional, ‘supplementary’ sermon material in these witnesses, gathered in the process of adding to Paul’s text, is not marked, demonstrating a prioritization of exegetical homilies. Additionally, homilies marked 1–4 are often alone; no other entries marked for 1–8 or 5–12 readings are nearby, indicating that these homilies were paired with readings from other books or collections, likely with a Scriptural lectionary. What this demonstrates is that at St Gall, the location for which we have the most evidence, homilies on the Gospels usually took up a single nocturn, when they were assigned. Their labelling as 1–4 may indicate that they were read in the first nocturn or that they were simply the four readings from another nocturn; it is unclear without further evidence. Sermons, when assigned, were usually placed as readings 1–8 of the first two nocturns, but St Gall appears

compare (1) CSG 423, pp. 117–19, which has four prominent litterae notabiliores for the beginning of a homily, amounting to seventy-two lines of about seven words each (504 words); (2) CSG 387, pp. 201–03, which has forty-two lines of about eight words each (336 words).   132 CSG 423, pp. 1–14 represents an exception, but these folios were added even later.   133 In evidence from the period around 850, beginning at least with the Mulhouse Evangelistary: Mulhouse, Bibliothèque de l’Université de la Société Industrielle, Collection Armand Weiss (no shelfmark). See von Euw, Die St Galler Buchkunst vom 8. bis zum Ende des 11. Jahrhunderts, Abb. 644–96, ii, 504–41 and later samples. Or, e.g. CSG 339 (980x1000); CSG 18 (c. 1000). There are some early examples of a pale red or orange, however: CSG 359 (c. 922/25), pp. 24–25; Cam­bridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, MS 27 (s. ixinc), fols 1v–2r, 13v, 26r.   134 E.g., Homilies marked 1–4: CSG 431, pp. 27–34, 35–46, 50–56, 65–71, 87–97, 97–113, 113–29, 130–37, 160–69, 173–87, 190–97, 266–71, 315–27; CSG 434, pp. 9–27, 27–42, 43–63, 70–75. Sermons marked 1–8: CSG 431, pp. 71–75, 74–79, 260–66, 290–93, 461–66; CSG 433, pp. 106–09. Homilies marked 1–12: CSG 433, pp. 73–77, 82–91, 91–97, 116–21. Homilies marked 1–8: CSG 433, pp. 77–81. Further examples could be shown across all four homiliaries.

241

242

c ha p te r 6

to have stopped reading many of the sermons in CSG 430, 431, 433, and 434. Finally, on saints’ days, a Gospel homily regularly took up all three nocturns. This pattern is similar to how Jesse Billett described the later Middle Ages, but not identical. Patristic readings could make up the whole of the Night Office nocturns, rather than being interspersed with readings from the Bible. It simply depended on the occasion. It has never been in doubt that Paul’s homiliary was used for liturgical reading, but I have attempted to place the discussion on a new footing. A good deal of evidence still requires further investigation, and I have indicated some of the witnesses to the collection that may shed more light on the topic, when more time may be dedicated to interpreting the hands that inserted liturgical marginalia. More could also be done to coordinate some of this material with that of later periods.135 For example, a fuller study of the ample liturgical resources at St Gall might demonstrate even further liturgical experimentation in the tenth century, relevant to this brief exploration. Finally, Billett’s thesis that Paul’s homiliary may have led to the regular reading of a Gospel homily in the Night Office seems somewhat vindicated here, but it is not clear that such readings were consistently placed in the third nocturn, as he argued. Such a development is later.

6.12. Other Uses: Storing Prayers and Community Memory Paul’s homiliary came to be used for a few other purposes in the course of the tenth century, which I cannot explore here due to space. One might classify these uses as ‘storage’: the homiliary came to be a place where communities might retain their memory of particularly precious information. For example, three homiliaries from St Gall and Reichenau came to store newly composed Office responses.136 Other witnesses of Paul’s homiliary were also used to retain or express a community’s memory, such as a genealogy of the final generations of the Carolingian dynasty at Compiègne,137 the transfer of property at St Germain-des-Près,138 a versification of the lives of the abbots of Benediktbeuern,139 or the record of a dispute between monks at St Serge and the canons of Tours.140 The preservation of such documents in homiliaries

  135 As has been done for monasteries like Fleury, Davril, ‘Le Lectionnaire de l’Office à Fleury’.   136 BLB, MS Aug. perg. 16, fols 13v, 14r, 16r, 18r, 19r, 21v, 23v, 25v, 27r, 29v, 57r, 58v, 60v, 63r, 66r, 67v, 72r, 73v, 75v, 77r, 79r, 81r; Basel, Öffentliche Bibliothek der Universität, MS B.IV.26, fols 4r, 5r, 5v, 7r, 9r, 14v; BLB, MS Aug. perg. 91, fols 20v, 22r, 22v, 24r, 25r, 26r, 27r, 29r, 32r.   137 BnF, MS lat. 16819, fol. 101v: ‘Genealogia Dictata a Karolo Rege’. See Koziol, ‘What Charles the Simple Told the Canons of Compiègne’.   138 BnF, MS lat. 12404, fols 1–4.   139 BSB, Clm 4533, fols 4v–5r. See Glauche, Katalog der lateinischen Handschriften der Bayerischen Staatsbibliothek München, pp. 51–52.   140 Angers, Médiathèque Toussaint, MS 235 (226), fol. 180v.

TRADIMUS

may surprise us. At first glance, they seem to have very little to do with PD’s raison d’être: namely, the preservation of patristic readings. However, these three homiliaries seem to have gained a greater status within their community, such that they were seen as fitting vessels for the preservation of communal memory.

6.13. Conclusion I concluded my last chapter with a note on the theo­logical riches of Paul’s homiliary, and a promise to examine how the churches in the Frankish Empire responded to the collection. This chapter has demonstrated the incredible reception of PD in the first two centuries after its creation. It was copied without change; it also inspired new collections that would emulate it, expand it, or borrow its authority. The homiliary was used for preaching, study, and liturgical reading, but also as a tool for the expression of many communities’ identities, ideals, devotional practices, and theo­logy. The range of responses generated by the collection shows that its reception was in some ways a local affair: just as the witnesses differed, so did the uses. There was no ‘top-down’ mandate requirement to copy or use PD, and communities felt free to adapt the text as they saw fit. But I have uncovered a whole series of commonalities as well. Significantly, although Charlemagne did not mandate the use of this text, as scholars have thought in the past, his desire — and Paul’s — that the homiliary would eventually come to ‘decorate all the churches of the Gauls’ largely came to pass. The choice of many churches to use the patristic collection commended by Charlemagne testifies to the cultural influence he wielded, the ability of networks to pass along new texts rapidly, and the degree to which the Carolingian world largely accepted the utility and authority of the authors and works selected by Paul.

243

Conclusion The homiliary of Paul the Deacon enjoyed an incredible reception in the Carolingian period, with over eighty extant witnesses from the ninth and tenth centuries. I have gathered references to hundreds more from the eleventh to fifteenth centuries. At least fifteen different versions were printed in the early modern period, and some small portion of the homiliary was included in most of the breviaries used by Roman Catholic clergy and monks in the modern period. This is a considerable legacy, but throughout this study, I have attempted to return again and again to the early witnesses for clues about the homiliary’s early history. Along the way, I have attempted to correct the record on a number of key facts about it, as well as cover new ground. Paul’s homiliary was a collection of 243 patristic texts, six readings from Isaiah, and numerous excerpts from the Gospels. The writers who took pride of place are the Venerable Bede, Gregory the Great, Leo the Great, and Maximus of Turin, especially ‘Maximus II’. Paul assigned others a secondary position: Origen, ‘John Chrysostom’, Augustine, and Jerome. He drew in a few texts from Ambrose, Fulgentius, Eusebius of Caesarea, and others, sometimes unwittingly. This construal of the patristic tradition was unique, and wholesale revision of this ‘canon’ of luminaries created by Paul would not come until much later. Renaissance humanists, Reformers, and their successors, the increasingly rigorous historians of the eighteenth century through to today — all have made a distinct impression on our understanding of the patristic canon, to the extent that Paul’s selection may appear deeply idiosyncratic. Where are Irenaeus of Lyon and Ignatius of Antioch, Athanasius, the Cappadocians, or Cyril of Alexandria? Few theo­logians, ministers, or historians of exegesis today cut their teeth on Bede. This fact should not lead us to undervalue the significance of Paul’s contribution: indeed, it might lead us to question some contemporary approaches to patristic study and to the history of the ‘early’, ‘late antique’, and medi­eval Church. Taken as a whole, the collection remains unique. No king had ever commissioned a homiliary before Charlemagne asked Paul to create his. No previous collection had ever drawn together so wide a selection of the tradition, in order to provide readings for the whole year. No collection had ever been organized to the degree that Paul’s text was: even the format of this text would have made a splash in its day. Perhaps, too, no scholar had ever spent so much time travelling, gathering texts, assessing them, editing them, and arranging them, in order to create such a collection. It was a monumental effort, and there was no obvious model, beyond the individual collections of patristic authorities themselves.

246

CONCLUSION

The result was a homiliary with a particular theo­logical slant. It heavily emphasized Gospel exegesis in a way that shaped the observance of the Divine Office and, arguably, the goals of many preachers, but the collection did not fail to provide guidance on how to read the whole of Scripture. With respect to doctrine, the homiliary’s contents express, for the most part, particularly Western understandings of the Trinity and Christo­logy, as teachings demonstrated in Scripture, but also as traditions to be assumed and used as supports for exegesis itself. To a certain extent, the homiliary either created or helped to cement Latin approaches to numerous doctrinal issues, in a way that differed from some Eastern or Greek approaches, which would come more to the fore during late medi­eval and Reformation debates. And yet, this is not a text focused upon solving aporiae that vex the scholarly mind. The texts in the homiliary are also oriented towards ethical exhortation, simple and allegorical: biblical figures must be imitated, directly and indirectly. The extant manu­scripts suggest that the homiliary was enthusiastically received in the Carolingian period. This fact testifies to many things: the persuasive power of royal liturgical practice and cultural patronage; the success of the rhetoric of tradition, orthodoxy, and eloquence deployed in the homiliary’s founding documents; the networks of intellectual, cultural, and liturgical exchange across the Frankish Empire that facilitated the homiliary’s dissemination; and the quality of material Paul had selected. These are all aspects of the Carolingian renaissance and correctio, refracted through the lens of a particular cultural product. Yet attention to the homiliary’s dissemination reveals the exceedingly local way in which communities worked out renaissance and correctio for themselves. They used this royal collection as a foundation for larger homiliaries and shorter ones. They omitted some of Paul’s authorities and added in others. Using Paul’s text as a source, they created new kinds of texts: books for Sundays, for saints, for the highest feasts only. Occasionally, they passed off their own work as if it were Paul’s. In the end, however, this varied adaptation and use argues for the overall cultural influence that the homiliary exerted: if they could, many intellectual and religious centres in the Carolingian world did something with the homiliary. At the same time, this fact should qualify our understanding of what it means to discover a witness to the homiliary of Paul the Deacon. Very few of the extant witnesses are ‘pure’ reproductions of his work; it is far more common to find his text changed: abbreviated, augmented, in some way repurposed. This pattern, begun in the Carolingian era, would continue into later centuries, such that Paul’s work pervaded Western Latin religious practice even as its original shape became ever more diffuse. This is not to deny that some communities retained, transmitted, or sought copies of Paul’s text that closely resembled the original. But, as time went on, they seem to have been in the minority. The wide diffusion of the text from the Carolingian period implies a number of things about the shared religious culture of the elite. To take only one example: Particularly after the second quarter of the ninth century, many

CONCLUSION

of the patristic readings in the Divine Office would have become common to the royal courts, many of the prominent monasteries, several cathedrals, and other elite locales. We might, then, say something like what follows. In the febrile years of 832–35, as Emperor Louis the Pious was deposed and various members of the Carolingian elite took sides, we can suppose that his sons, many of the abbots and bishops involved, and significant numbers of the military elite would have heard or read again in the summer — when kings go off to war — about the revolt of Absalom against King David. For in Paul’s homiliary, at that time, they would hear a sermon on the topic from the golden-mouthed St John about the penalties of breaking faith, and how neither sons nor their fellows should work against their fathers or kings.1 In many cases, I am saying, we may fill in the spiritual, moral, and theo­logical milieu in which key events in Carolingian history took place, precisely by being aware of the readings in extant witnesses of Paul’s homiliary. I hope the initial sketches in Chapter 4 will aid future researchers interested in just such work. We may qualify many earlier scholarly statements suggesting that travellers in the Carolingian Empire were bound to encounter the homiliary of Paul the Deacon, but we can say with much greater confidence precisely where they might have done so and, with greater ease, how those constantly moving in elite spaces would have met around common liturgical texts. Having said that, I am well aware of what this study did not and perhaps could not achieve, such as uncovering more of the personal elements behind the formation of the text and its reception. I often wonder what sort of conversations Paul, Charlemagne, and others at the court had when they discussed the creation of the homiliary. I imagine various visitors discussing the shortcomings of existing liturgical collections, and then those gathered spoke of their love for orthodoxy, eloquence, the beauty of the liturgy, the proper worship of God, and the writings of the Holy Fathers. They sent out letters to various churches to discover the state of learning and the extent of library holdings in the Frankish kingdoms. They looked at maps and spoke to guides and escorts concerning how long it would take to travel and find the necessary books. They rode through snow and ice along imperiled roads, as well as through broad sunlit meadows, in their search for more copies of the Fathers. They laughed, they ate, they debated; they worshipped together day and night in the Office and the Mass. They spoke of their hopes: not least, that the churches would accept the collection, read it, cherish it, and absorb its teachings. The work was delayed or frustrated by illness, death, war, bad roads, bad moods, other projects. So Charlemagne, Paul, and many others sought the intercession of the saints, not least St Benedict, for the grace to persevere, until that day when Charlemagne received it complete and passed it on to his chaplains for reading, as the Epistola Generalis recounts.

 1 PD II:58, Dominica II post natale Apostolorum. Omelia de Absalom ubi Dauid patrem persequitur (GPD II:59), Ps-John Chrysostom, Sermo 15.

247

2 48

CONCLUSION

The homiliary was formed in the nexus of this sort of community life, even if what I have written is only an imaginative exercise, and an overly idealized one at that. We may never know the personal sorts of details about the creation of the homiliary or its use; we rarely know such facts about how books come together and are received in our own time. I count myself fortunate to have traced out a few details about this one. These unaddressed areas of inquiry leave work for others to consider completing in the future on the basis of what I have done here. Every manu­script and patristic text I have mentioned is worth further examination, especially the rare ones. When a community omitted an entry in Paul’s homiliary and replaced it with something else, the substitution was not just one name for another, but an entirely different text, affecting communal experience and understanding of a biblical pericope, a saint, or a feast day. The same is true when a community added material. The reader may allow me another example, as an inspiration to thought. When the monastery of St Gall decided between 850 and 872 to add Bede’s Homelia I.6 to their Christmas celebrations, as they produced a new homiliary for the Advent-Epiphany seasons, they would have heard Bede declare what a blessing it is for many peoples to be governed by ‘one man’ in one empire. They would have heard, too, of the opportunities afforded to preachers by ‘the serenity of earthly peace’.2 As the monks, novices, students, or even gathered nobles heard this sentiment, did they sigh with nostalgia for the days of Charlemagne and Louis the Pious? Did the lector’s voice tremble with emotion? Did the gathered assembly rejoice or despair that they lived in an empire whose rule was divided among squabbling successors, even while their oft absent abbot served as arch-chaplain at the court of Louis the German? And how did they feel upon the brief succession of Charles the Bald to the imperial title — or, indeed, at the successions of Charles the Fat, Guy and Lambert of Spoleto, Arnulf of Carinthia, or Louis the Blind? Such a text would have been read and heard differently as the years passed and imperial powers waned. For people like Notker the Stammerer (c. 840–912) and his contemporaries at St Gall, the political shifts in a single lifetime would have meant no such homiliary text sounded the same, even if read every year. This reminds us of how even long-cherished traditions do not produce static events or experiences. Perhaps the mood remained positive, and those at St Gall mostly rejoiced during their particular Golden Age, as they reaped again and again the benefits of royal and imperial patronage, and as most of the conflicts took place far from the clear mountain air and the cloisters above the Bodensee. Or perhaps the mood was mixed, as Notker’s own Gesta Karoli Magni suggests, opening

 2 See Bede, Homelia I.6, trans. by Hurst, pp. 52–64, at 52–54. In CSG 430 (St Gall, 850x872), pp. 173–87, this text replaces the all too brief lection of PD I:27, Item de natale Domini (GPD I:24), Gregory the Great, Homelia I.8.

CONCLUSION

with praises of the sole rule of Charlemagne and later extolling Louis the German as a pious and generous king and patron in his lifetime, all the while written for Charles the Fat himself, born around the same time as Notker and long associated as a count, duke, and then king of the regions around St Gall. In Christmas 884, Notker might have had hopes for that latter Charles as he once again heard of the ‘serenity of earthly peace’ in Bede’s Homelia I.6 and anticipated Charles’s coronation to come — only to have them dashed, as within a few years Charles faced problems of succession, was deposed, and died. Here, in particular, I hope I have demonstrated what fresh opportunity we have to discuss the reception of Paul’s work in particular centres and its impact on communities and individuals, moving beyond the mere listing and comparison of manu­script contents. The foundations I have laid here make it possible to speak in significant detail about community life in places I have discussed repeatedly in this book (Tours, St Gall, Aachen), and in more distant locales, like Spain and England in the tenth century, who came to receive Paul’s text in unique ways. These remain unventured avenues for now. But they point to a key fact: the homiliary of Paul the Deacon was one of the most significant cultural products of the Carolingian era, perhaps of the Middle Ages. It lies at the heart of spiritual and emotional experience in that time, shaping the liturgical practices and faith of thousands of people in the first two centuries after its composition. Its impact remains to be charted in full, both in the Carolingian era and beyond, but it was clearly considerable — whatever we cannot know about the homiliary’s creation or use, whatever details have escaped my attention or time here, whatever we may discover in the future. Initially, the homiliary resulted from the unique confluence of the talents, motivations, and spiritual, intellectual, and material resources of Paul and Charlemagne, along with their unnamed collaborators. They may never have imagined their work would enjoy such success, as they sought a text for their own immediate benefit. And yet, in its reception, the homiliary became the gift of Paul and Charlemagne to the Christian churches of the Frankish Empire and, eventually, to the churches of the Latin West and then to the Roman Rite across the globe. As such, the homiliary is a monument in the history of Europe and the world, eminently worthy of further study.

249

Appendix 1

Paul’s Dedicatory Verse, Summo apici rerum

Manu­script Sigla for the Edition of Paul’s Preface P

Cam­bridge, Peterhouse, MS 130 (Germany, c. 1145–1153; made for Kloster Holzen?)

Pet

Karlsruhe, BLB, MS St Peter perg. 18 (Erfurt, c. 1400)

Q

Munich, BSB, Clm 4533 (SW Germany, s. ix3/4)

R

Munich, BSB, Clm 17194 (Bavaria, s. ix1/2)

S

Karlsruhe, BLB, MS Aug. perg. 29 (Reichenau, s. ix2/4)

T

Leiden, Bibliotheek der Rijksuniversiteit, MS Vossianus latinus F.4.A  (NE Francia, s. ix4/4)

V

Oxford, Corpus Christi College, MS 255A (NE Francia, s. x)

W

Oxford, Magdalen College, MS 102 (NE England, s. xii)

X

Paris, Bibliothèque Mazarine, MS 695 (St Barbara’s, Co­logne, s. xv)

Y

Paris, BnF, MS lat. 16819.A (NE Francia, probably Compiègne, s. ix3/4)

Z

Vatican City, BAV, MS Vat. lat. 8562 (S Germany, s. xi)

Among these manu­scripts, V has two copies of the Epistola Generalis on the verso and recto sides of its first folio, which I have labelled here V(i) and V(ii). V(ii) stops at line 16, incorporates some of the corrections noted in V(i), while making some fresh errors. The hand of V(ii) shows less experience. Along with the pen trials and some later inconsistencies in hand and letter size in the copying of the Epistola Generalis, Utere Felix, and Incipiunt Omeliae, this suggests perhaps that these folios involved trial exercises in designing a final product, but I have given less attention to this fragmentary oddity than I would like. It was not possible to consult three manu­scripts that came to my attention at a late point in the completion of this book. Each contains the Epistola Generalis and perhaps other prefatory material. • Graz, Universitätsbibliothek, MS 672 (s. xiv2/2) • Trier, Stadtbibliothek, Hs. 219/1406 2° (Eberhardsklausen, s. xv2/2) • Monza, Biblioteca Capitolare, MS g8/115 (N Italy (Monza?), s. x)

252

a p p e n di x 1



Latin Text1 1

Summo apici rerum regi dominoque potenti, dat famulus supplex uerba legenda suus.

5

Ampla mihi uestro est humili deuotio seruo Praeceptis parere tuis celeberrime regum, Quem dedit omnicreans rector miseratus ab altis. Christicolum populis defensoremque patremque. Sit licet effectus modicis pro uiribus impar. Ingens ardenti tamen est sub corde uoluntas.

10 15

En iutus patris benedicti mira patrantis Auxilio meritisque piis uestrique fidelis Abbatis dominique mei et si iussa nequiui Explere ut dignum est tamen o pietatis amator Excipe gratanter decus et mirabile mundi Qualemcumque tui famuli rex magne laborem Quodque sacro nuper mandasti famine condi Nunc opus acceptans rutilo comitare fauore In quo si quid labis erit uitiique nocentis Illud uestra sagax nimium sapientia purget.

20

Utque legi per sacra queat domicilia Christi Nullius titubante fide si sensibus altis Enixe ut cupio uestris utcumque placebit. Firmum oro capiat uestra sanctione uigorem.

 1 Text extant in P, Q, S, T, V, W, and X. My line-numbering differs from Neff, Gedichte, 32, who does not count the title as part of the poem. 1. T Praefatio, then lines 1–2; W/X Prefatio, then lines 1–2; V domino quepotenti | 2. T suis (corrected to suus) V suvs | 4. V(i+ii) preceptis T cȩleberrime W reguor | 5. P/S alto | 8. V(ii) cord | 9. Q patranti P uirtus — patnti (corrected to patanti) W adiutorium (for En iutus) | 10. Q omits A V(ii) line smudged | 11. Q Ablatii T uisa (for iussa) | 12. V(ii) dig, erasures on this line | 13. Q ȩ (for et) | 14. Q omits ualemcumque — magnae (for magne) | 15. Q Quoque | 16. V(ii) ends here. T/W line omitted Q omits fauore | 17. Q/T/V(i) erit labis P uiciique | 19. P saxax W tque (corrected to Atque) V(i) quaeat | 20. V(i) sinentibus | 21. W utcunque | 22. V(i) capia P uigoreo

Pau l’s D e d i c ato ry V e r s e , Summo apici rerum



English Translation 1

To the summit of all things, the King and powerful Lord, His beggarly servant gives words to be read.

5

It was a great honour for thine humble slave To be subject to thy precepts, most celebrated of Kings, Whom the all-creating Ruler, compassionate on high, has given, As a Christian defender and father for the peoples. Although the work was made for little men, if it proves unequal To thy remarkable will, it came from an eager heart.

10 15

Behold, the help of Father Benedict working wonders By the help and pious merits of thy fidelis And of my Abbot and Lord! Yet, if I have been unable to fulfil Thy commands as is worthy, O Lover of Piety, still, Receive with happiness, thou glory and wonder of the world, Such a labour of thy servant, O Great King. And what thou, with a sacred utterance, ordered long ago to be created, Now, receiving the work, grant it thy shining favour. If there is any vice or defect in it, May thine exceedingly wise insight cleanse it.

20

And that it may be read throughout the sacred houses of Christ, With no one’s faith faltering — assuming that it is pleasing To thine exalted senses — as I desire, I pray: may it receive strength from thy sanction.

25 3

Appendix 2

Charlemagne’s Prefatory Letter, the Epistola Generalis

Latin Text1 1 Carolus, Dei fretus auxilio, rex Francorum et Langobardorum ac patricius Romanorum, religiosis lectoribus nostrae ditioni subiectis. 5 10

Cum nos diuina semper domi forisque clementia siue in bellorum euentibus siue pacis tranquillitate custodiat, et si rependere quicquam eius beneficiis tenuitas humana non praeualet, tamen quia est inaestimabilis misericordiae Deus noster, deuotas suae seruituti benigne approbat uoluntates. Igitur quia curae nobis est, ut nostrarum ecclesiarum ad meliora semper proficiat status, oblitteratam pene maiorum nostrorum desidia reparare uigilanti studio litterarum satagimus officinam. Et ad pernoscenda studia liberalium artium nostro &iam quos possumus inuitamus exemplo. Inter quae iam pridem uniuersos ueteris ac noui instrumenti libros librariorum imperitia deprauatos, Deo nos in

 1 Extant in P, Pet, Q, S, T, W, V, X, and once attached to R and Y. This edition does not take note of U, which I hope to consult in the future. I have not retained reference to the lines of Epistola Generalis, ed. by Boretius. His first twenty lines include reference to his introduction, which seems unnecessary to include here, and I cannot emulate his format to achieve the same effect. My punctuation differs in certain places, and I have divided the para­graphs according to divisions in several manu­scripts. W adds Epistola karoli gloriossimi regis francorum. X adds Incipit pro­logus karoli magni imperatoris. super sermonibus et omeliis sanctorum patrum per circulum anni legendis. 1. Pet/T/W Karolus Pet/P/T/W/X Longobardorum | 2. P nrȩ T/W/X dicioni V editioni | 3. P omits nos X clemencia | 4. V & | 5. Pet benefitiis V preual& P preualet 5–6. P quia tamen est | 6. V .e. (for est) Pet/P/X inestimabilis W estimabilis (!) V ds nrt P/X ds nr Pet/X sue | 7. T/W seruitutis Q benignae X omits benigne Q/T ac probat | 8. P curȩ Pet/X cure T/V nraru ecclesiaru Q aecclesiarum | 9. T damaged …tus Pet obliterata P obliteratam V penem T malorum (!) | 10. T desdi Pet literarum P/V & | 11. V makes nostro the beginning of a new sentence Nro & ia quos possum’ inuitamus exemplo Q a&tiam Pet/P etiam X etia’ | 12. Pet Lacks punctus after exemplo Pet que P Interquae | 13. Pet testamenti (for instrumenti) T instument V inperitia X impericia | 14. Pet examus sim S examusin Q/V examusim P exhausim T correxi m’ |

2 56

a p p e n di x 2

omnibus adiuuante, examussim correximus. Accensi praeterea 15 uenerandae memoriae Pippini genitoris nostri exemplis, qui totas Galliarum ecclesias Romanae traditionis suo studio cantibus decorauit. Nos nihilominus sollerti easdem curamus intuitu praecipuarum insignire serie lectionum. Denique quia ad nocturnale officium compilatas quorundam 20 casse labore licet recte intuitu minus tamen idonee repperimus lectiones, quippe quae et sine auctorum suorum uocabulis essent positae et infinitis uitiorum anfractibus scaterent, non sumus passi nostris in diebus in diuinis lectionibus inter sacra officia inconsonantes perstrepere soloecismos. Atque earundem lectionum in melius 25 reformare tramitem mentem intendimus. Idque opus Paulo diacono, familiari clientulo nostro, elimandum iniunximus. Scilicet ut studiose catholicorum patrum dicta percurrens, ueluti e latissimis eorum pratis certos quosque flosculos legeret, et in unum quaeque essent utilia quasi sertum aptaret. 30 Qui nostrae celsitudini deuote parere desiderans, tractatus atque sermones diuersorum catholicorum patrum perlegens, & optima quaeque decerpens, in duobus uoluminibus per totius anni circulum congruentes cuique festiuitati distincte & absque uitiis nobis optulit lectiones. Quarum omnium textum nostra sagacitate perpendentes, 35 nostra eadem uolumina auctoritate constabilimus uestraeque religioni in Christi ecclesiis tradimus ad legendum. 15. Pet/T/X uenerande V uenerandȩ Pet/X memorie T pipi ni P/W pipini Pet omits nostri X nri | 16. Q aecclesias W ȩcclesias Q/T/V/W romanȩ Pet/X romane Pet traditioni | 17. T nihilhominus W nichilominus T solerti | 18. V seri electionu | 19. P/Q/T/V conpilatas | 20. Pet/P/V/W casso labore licet recto Q casso labore lic& recto T tam Q/V idoneae W idoneȩ Pet ydonee reperimus X ydonee repimus | 21. Pet que X cum (for quae) V/W & | 22. Pet/T/X posite Q/V/W positȩ P/W/X viciorum Pet/T amfractibus V ãfractibus X anifractibus | 23. Q omits in (1st) T/W intra (for inter) V insonantes | 24. Q strepere solecismos P solȩcismos Pet/X soleocismos | 25. T/W mente | 27. in (later corrected to ut) Q studiosae | 28. W velut Pet/P elatissimus Q leger& T omits et Q/W & | 29. Q quemq T quȩque Pet/W/X queque P aptarent | 30. T celsitudine (corrected in later red) Q deuotae T tractates (corrected in later red) | 31. Pet/X et | 32. T quȩque Pet/P/W/X queque T/W discerpens (T: corrected in later red) P/X tocius | 33. Pet congruente Q distinctae T/V distinctȩ Pet et P/X viciis S omits nobis (corrected) Pet/V obtulit | 34. W sagatitate | 35. Pet nostre que (for uestraeque)

C ha r l e m ag n e ’s P r e fato ry L e t t e r , the Ep istol a Generalis



English Translation Charles, supported by the help of God, King of the Franks and Lombards and also Patrician of the Romans. To the religious lectors subject to our power. Since divine mercy guards us always, both at home and in public, whether during the events of war or in the tranquillity of peace, even while human weakness does not have strength to repay anything to his benefits — still, since our God is of inestimable mercy, he benignly approves of wills devoted to his service — therefore, because the cares are ours, that the state of our churches should always proceed to better things, we busy ourselves with vigilant zeal (studio) to repair the workshop of letters,2 nearly obliterated by the indolence of our elders, and we invite whom we can to acquiring thorough knowledge of the study of the liberal arts, even by our example. Among these activities, some time ago, we corrected precisely, with God helping us in all things, all the books of the Old and New Testament, which were corrupted by the inexpertise of copyists (librariorum imperitia). Afterwards, kindled by the examples of our parent Pippin of venerated memory, who decorated all the churches of the Gauls with chants of the Roman tradition by his zeal,3 we took no less care for the same things, with skilled intention, to stamp (insignire) them by a series of excellent readings. Finally, because we found the readings compiled for the Night Office by the fruitless labour (albeit right intention) of some to be less than suitable — readings that were appointed without including the names of their authors and that were strewn with infinite rounds of textual corruption — we suffered not in our days that dissonant solecisms should resound in the divine readings during the sacred offices, and we bent our mind to reform the course of the same readings into something better. The polishing of that work we enjoined to Paul the Deacon, our dear little client. Namely that, running studiously through the sayings of the Catholic Fathers, he might pick out from their most expansive meadows certain flowers, and he might join into one what would be useful, like a garland. He, wishing to be devoutly obedient to Our Highness, reading over the tracts and sermons of diverse Catholic Fathers, and selecting what was best, has offered us readings without textual corruptions, bringing them together into two volumes through the circle of the whole year and fit for each distinct feast. After carefully assessing all of these texts by Our Wisdom, we confirm the same volumes by Our Authority and we hand them over to Your Religion for reading in the churches of Christ.

 2 Or, ‘we busy ourselves with the vigilant study of letters to repair the office’.  3 Or, ‘who decorated all the churches of the Gauls with chants by his study of the Roman tradition’.

25 7

Appendix 3

The Descriptive Introduction, Incipiunt omeliae

Latin Text1 1 In nomine omnipotentis dei. Incipiunt omeliae siue tractatus beatorum Ambrosii Augustini Hieronimi Leonis Maximi Gregorii et aliorum catholicorum et uenerabilium patrum, legendae per totius anni circulum, tam in singulis 5 dominicis diebus quamque et in reliquis festiuitatibus, id est, natiuitate domini necnon Epiphania seu Pascha, ascensione quoque domini, siue Pentecoste, uel etiam festis Apostolorum Virginum Martyrumque seu Confessorum ieiuniorumque diuersorum. Quorum omnium ordine suo, adnotatio inferius continetur. Quicquid sane in hoc uolumine minus est in alio 10 habetur. Incipiunt capitula in primis de Aduentu domini.



English Translation In the name of Almighty God. Here begin the homilies or tracts of blessed Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome, Leo, Maximus, Gregory, and other Catholic and Venerable Fathers, to be read through the circle of the whole year, both on individual Sundays and also on the remaining feasts, i.e. the Nativity of the Lord, and, indeed, the Epiphany, Pascha, also the Ascension of the Lord, and Pentecost, and also on the feasts of the Apostles, Virgins, and Martyrs, or Confessors and diverse fast days. The notes for all of these, in their order, are below. Whatever is shorter in this volume may be found in another volume. Here begin the chapters for the start of the Advent of the Lord.

 1 1. P omits omnipotentis X omits invocation | 2. X adds vols secunda post incipient P omelie Z tractatus sive omelie R omits siue tractatus R/V Agustini W adds atque post Augustini | 3. S Heronimi W Ieronimi | 3–4. P et aliorum catholicorum patrum legendȩ (ends afterwards) V places Gregorii at front of list | 4. T legendȩ R/S/V/Z legend W legendum (corrected to legende) R/T/W totum anni circulum | 5. W quam V/W/Z in reliquis divinis festiuitatibus | 5–6. T Id est natiuitate domini et ceteris in ordine usque in pascha W id est natiuitate dni. & ce/teris in ordine ab aduentu dni usque ad pascha | 6. Z ascene | 7. V Pentecosten | 8. R omits ieiuniorumque — divessorum (for diuersorum) | 9. V quidquid | 11. Z omits the line V prim — adds rubric for first entry Ebd quinta ante natale dni evangelium secundu iohannem

Appendix 4

Paul’s Laudatory Verse, Utere felix (c. 800)

Latin Text1 1 5



Utere felix munere Cristi pluribus annis luxque decusque magne tuorum Carole princeps atque togatae arbiter orbis dardanidaeque gloria gentis.

English Translation 1 5

Blessed one, enjoy the gift of Christ For many years, O light and ornament, Charles, Great Prince of thine own, Toga-wearing judge of the world, And glory of the Dardanid nation.

 1 Extant in Q and V; Mabillon, Vetera analecta, i, 18, mentions its transmission in an early edition of Paul’s homiliary (Co­logne, 1557) that I have not yet found. 2. Q Plurib. — luxq.decusq. 4. Q Atq.

Appendix 5

A Handlist of Witnesses to Paul the Deacon’s Homiliary The following handlist represents the fruit of several years of labour, and it has a simple purpose: to gather brief descriptions of many witnesses to Paul the Deacon’s homiliary. It is undoubtedly incomplete. At every stage of my research over the past decade, I have continued to discover relevant manu­scripts, right up to the point I finally submitted this study for publication. I am sure there are errors in judgement and (alas) in typo­graphy, however minor. Forgive me these. Readers and scholars aware of the vagaries of manu­script research and cataloguing will know how much time goes into this sort of effort. And, at the end, the work remains imperfect. I have divided witnesses primarily by the period of their production, then by current location. Where possible, I have noted provenance or place of production. I have seen nearly all of the Carolingian witnesses personally or through various digitization efforts; they remain the manu­scripts with which I am most familiar. For their dating and provenance, I have often relied on Bernhard Bischoff ’s posthumously published Katalog, among his other works. I have at times offered small refinements or further details regarding manu­scripts whose history or character appeared different to me. Due to the confines of space, I have not always justified those decisions here. I invite readers to read the chapters of this book for more detail. Most of the witnesses to Paul’s work stem from the eleventh to the fifteenth centuries, leaving aside many incunabula. A number of the later manu­scripts were crucial for the current study, and I have consulted dozens of them, but certainly not all. For these later manu­scripts, I have relied even more on the work of others, and have more often deferred to their judgements and descriptions, as expressed in recent catalogues, digital resources, or individual studies. For French witnesses, the work of Raymond Étaix is indispensable. The search capabilities of Manu­scripta Mediaevalia have added to this list on numerous occasions over the past eight years, and I have crossed-checked my lists with other print resources or online databases as much as is possible (e.g. Mirabile). Some newer resources, such as the PASSIM database, were in development at the time of publication. I am sure some scholars would prefer longer descriptions and more extensive references to catalogues and relevant secondary literature. They are not alone. I too would have found this desirable, but including these things would have made for a much longer handlist, more difficult to use and taking up far too many pages. And, in any case, the development of digital search tools may render such a thing largely unnecessary for the time being.

264

a p p e n di x 5

Within this handlist, I have applied various labels to these witnesses, such as integral, augmented, abbreviated, abridged, rearranged, fragmentary, fragments, and shattered. Sometimes I have used more than one of these for particular witnesses, in a gesture towards their complex nature. My thinking is as follows. Integral witnesses are manu­scripts that faithfully reproduce a significant

portion of the original work of Paul, largely in its original structure. They are occasionally augmented or abbreviated in minor ways, but they are the clearest witnesses to the homiliary’s original shape. Perhaps fewer than thirty total witnesses fall into this category, many of them discussed at length in the chapters above.

In augmented witnesses, the structure of the original homiliary appears clear (even if only in portions), but the collection has been enriched by additional material — usually drawn from other lengthy homily collections of single authors (e.g. Augustine, Leo, Gregory, Bede, Rabanus) or drawn from other mixed liturgical collections, such as the homiliary of Saint-Mihiel, the collection Sancti Catholici Patres, or the homiliary of Alan of Farfa. Abbreviated witnesses are those whole manu­scripts that transmit a significantly reduced portion of Paul’s work. This category can include manu­scripts that cover a relatively wide selection of the liturgical year, but omit portions of Paul’s work for various reasons.1 Other manu­scripts were clearly abbreviated to prevent the recopying of material a monastery or cathedral possessed in another manu­script, and more than one witness includes marginal notes or rubrics to such effect. The category also includes manu­scripts produced to provide a rich selection for only one portion of the liturgical year, such as Advent to Epiphany, Lent, or Holy Week. Abridged witness are more common in the later medi­eval period (particularly lectionaries and breviaries) and are witnesses that contain radically shortened selections from Paul’s work. I have included reference to only a few breviaries here, since the inclusion of even a portion of one type (e.g. Sarum) would have meant many more months of work, at the very least, and they represent a different topic and problem in their own right. Many breviaries might be best addressed under another category below: shattered witnesses. But I imagine my study and handlist will be invaluable to the researcher who dares reopen that topic, with its vast secondary literature. Rearranged witnesses are those manu­scripts that transmit Paul’s material but have, for various reasons, decided to put his material in a significantly different order. A primary reason for rearranging Paul’s material was to make his content match local liturgical calendars. Alternatively, his work might be rearranged or relabelled to cohere with another way of ordering  1 Sometimes, it seems, to make a collection portable, as in Basel, Öffentliche Bibliothek der Uni­ver­sität, MS B.IV.26 and Stuttgart, Württembergische Landesbibliothek, MS HB VII 57, each produced at St Gall between 883 and 912.

a  ha n dl i s t o f w i t n e s s e s to pau l t he d e aco n’s ho mi li ary

the liturgical year (e.g. labelling the days after Pentecost with a continuous system of Sundays, unlike Paul). This happens in many small ways in most witnesses to Paul’s work, but some are more significant than others. Fragmentary witnesses are manu­scripts that have lost significant portions of their original material, or that were once joined together, but at some point in their history have been split up and are now extant in separate locations. Some of these fragmentary witnesses remain large and were key for reconstructing the homiliary’s original structure.2 Fragments are simpler. These witnesses are extant only as substantially reduced portions of once larger manu­scripts. Generally, I include in this category any manu­script that was clearly once part of a larger whole but has now been transmitted within the confines of another manu­script (e.g. surviving only in the bindings of other later manu­scripts, or gathered into a larger whole as part of modern efforts at cataloguing library contents). Occasionally, only a single folio is extant from a former collection, but more often we are dealing with fragment collections of eight to twenty leaves, which have been transmitted together or reunited with other fragments through the efforts of modern scholars.3 Some of these witnesses, though fragments, are quite significant, especially those fragments that transmit a portion of the homiliary’s preface. Shattered witnesses are a separate, important category. They represent a phenomenon referred to more frequently and accurately in German language text-critical scholarship: Streuüberlieferung.4 With some change in reapplication, I use this term to indicate the transmission of Paul the Deacon’s work within the confines of other kinds of manu­scripts, most often but not exclusively within breviaries or other homiliaries. In such cases, the structure of Paul’s homiliary has all but disappeared during the process of incorporating it into a different sort of collection. In individual cases, the amount of material transmitted from Paul within such a manu­ script may be small, perhaps less than 10 per cent of the whole.

 2 E.g., the winter volume now extant in various fragments in Bloomington, IN, Los Angeles, Detroit, and New Haven, as well as a fragment I have been unable to track down that was sold into a private collection. Less than a century ago, it was a relatively whole manu­script in Turin.  3 The continuing effort in various Scandinavian countries to recover such fragments from the bindings of various early modern books has been more than exemplary, and I mention with gratitude here especially the work of Astrid Marner. I regret that I have not been able to include the fruits of such efforts in all their abundance.  4 See Schnell, ‘Das “Prüller Kräuterbuch”. Zu Überlieferung und Rezeption’, p. 292. No single term encapsulates this category well in English, but I have adopted it here with gratitude to Regina Schwiewer for suggesting it. Streuüberlieferung might also be fairly applied to some of my earlier categories, such as ‘rearranged’ or ‘abbreviated’, and I have occasionally combined it with those. But I mention it here as a separate category in order to give the reader some indication of my thought.

265

26 6

a p p e n di x 5

These categories, particularly the last, are important for another reason, and I hope the reader will permit me a brief digression to explain why. It is a common claim that Paul’s homiliary was used ‘with some additions and other changes’ throughout the Western Church up until the reforms of the Second Vatican Council, primarily but not exclusively in the monastic and clerical observation of the Divine Office.5 It also had a profound effect on public preaching and teaching, and on the initial formation of the faith of incalculable numbers of people. This is primarily a way of stating the significance of the collection. To understand the Latin West, its practices, and its beliefs, one must understand the daily experiences, reading, and prayer of its pastors, teachers, and governors from the eighth century to the twentieth. After all, they intersect with nearly every aspect of religious and social life until the Reformation, and afterwards they shaped the global expression of Catholic faith. I take little issue with the broad outlines of such a statement. It is useful shorthand for practical purposes, like grant applications and small talk at scholarly gatherings (dinners, conferences, panel interviews). I have used it myself on more than one occasion, joining the ranks of other researchers seeking to make general comments about the history of liturgy or theo­logy. After my own study of the question, however, I would emphasize that the typical caveat — ‘with some additions and other changes’ — holds a great deal of variance, perhaps too much to stand unchallenged. I repeat this point in the introduction to this handlist, in case some readers do not have the time to read the rest of this study. For example, in my estimation, among French medi­eval manu­scripts, witnesses to Paul’s work constitute roughly 41 per cent of the liturgical homiliaries and lectionaries currently catalogued. But the level of Paul’s influence varied widely and is difficult to characterize. A few examples will suffice. Among the great homiliary collections of the eleventh to the thirteenth centuries, several stand out, including the ‘great lectionary’ of Corbie, the homiliaries of Cluny and the Cistercians, and the homiliaries of the Carthusians. Each originated in France. Each went on to influence other collections, whether homiliaries, lectionaries, or breviaries.6 Each represented a particular attempt at gathering and organizing the patristic inheritance, and in the case of Corbie, the attempt was particularly exhaustive. Each drew on the homiliary of Paul the Deacon or on other collections that included his work. Each drew in further material from Church Fathers like Augustine, Gregory, and John Chrysostom, with some other Fathers making appearances where their writings could be accessed. Viewed at this level of abstraction and generalization, they could appear flatly similar, and perhaps stand as witnesses to the common claims regarding the impact of Paul the Deacon’s homiliary.

 5 E.g. HLM, p. 425.  6 For example, several of these came to the monasteries at Reims. Comparison with the lectionaries at the cathedral remains undone.

a  ha n dl i s t o f w i t n e s s e s to pau l t he d e aco n’s ho mi li ary

These patristic collections diverged significantly, however. Some differ because of their relative dependence or independence of effort. Consider the complex cases of Cluny, the Cistercians, and the Carthusians. The Cluniac lectionaries, which are near the head of many streams, are relatively faithful marriages of Paul’s original text with biblical readings; inclusions from other patristic collections are discrete, relatively minimal, and concentrated in the sanctorale.7 Things swiftly become more complicated in the homiliaries of later movements. Early Cistercian homiliaries and Office manu­scripts depended on traditions from both Marmoutier and Cluny, before heading in new directions during and after the time of Bernard of Clairvaux, such as favouring biblical readings over patristic texts on many occasions, reducing the length of lessons, and handling saints’ days in distinct ways.8 Yet even this is not the whole story for the Cistercians. At the same time, either at Clairvaux or nearby, a vast collection of patristic sermons (largely non-exegetical) brought together 345 patristic texts for a variety of liturgical occasions, primarily from the Tripartite collection of Augustine, a collection of sermons of Maximus of Turin (some attributed to Ambrose), and many sermons from the homiliary of Paul the Deacon.9 It was labelled the homiliary or sermonary Sancti Catholici Patres.10 Finally, the Carthusian homiliaries for the Office and the refectory appear to have drawn on many of these earlier Cistercian or Cluniac collections or manu­scripts, such as Sancti Catholici Patres or the Augustinian collection De verbis Domini et Apostoli, as well as Paul’s homiliary or an augmented version of it.11 At each level, then, new movements or institutions built on and altered the work of those who came before. Rarely do we see a case of simple reception. The level of detail, however, remains difficult to capture. Amid these many changes, Paul’s work remains a touchstone, but in altered forms. Corbie’s ‘great lectionary’ tells another complex story. A ninth-century witness to Paul’s work has long been associated with this monastery and may have been used for the Office there. Like other locales, Corbie appears to have adopted Cluny’s augmented lectionary in the middle of the twelfth century. But, like the compilers of Sancti Catholici Patres — albeit with greater resources — Corbie’s monks soon set off to create a massive collection that brought together the largest number of texts for each day of the liturgical

 7 Étaix, ‘Le Lectionnaire de l’office à Cluny’.  8 See Grégoire, ‘L’Homéliaire cistercien du manuscrit 114 (82) de Dijon’; Waddell, The Primitive Cistercian Breviary, pp. 62–63; Waddell, ‘The Pre-Cistercian Background of Cîteaux’; Waddell, The Summer-Season Molesme Breviary, pp. xviii–xix.  9 This collection deserves fresh attention: Bouhot’s original analysis did not distinguish clearly enough the texts drawn from PD or elsewhere, particularly in reference to texts of Maximus or Pseudo-Maximus/Maximus II. At least 10 per cent of the entries are mislabelled.  10 See Bouhot, ‘L’Homéliaire des Sancti catholici Patres’; Bouhot, ‘Deux exemplaires de l’homéliaire des Sancti catholici Patres’.  11 Étaix, ‘L’Homiliaire Cartusien’; Étaix, ‘Le Lectionnaire cartusien pour le réfectoire’.

267

26 8

a p p e n di x 5

year, completing their work around ad 1179.12 Paul’s work, already augmented, and that of Alan of Farfa make up a large part of this collection. But it also drew on several other distinct collections: among others, the homiliary of Mondsee, perhaps the Escorial collection of John Chrysostom, rare Latin translations of Gregory of Nazianzus, nineteen rare sermons from Valerian of Cimiez, Augustinian texts from the Alleluia collection (perhaps mediated through other homiliaries), and others known from another homiliary of the twelfth century (Paris, Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal, MS 470). This is without mentioning the diverse range of patristic texts used to provide readings for the ferial days of Lent. These great homiliaries and lectionaries are witnesses to Paul the Deacon’s work and to its continued influence, but can we use them to say that his homiliary served as the patristic lectionary for the West until the Reformation? I think not. Similarly, Paul’s homiliary had differing impacts upon various breviaries compiled from the thirteenth to sixteenth centuries. The Sarum breviary, for instance, follows Paul to a great degree, but the Franciscan breviary — used as a model across medi­eval Europe, in the papal courts, and then for the post-Tridentine breviaries used around the globe — does not. To return to the question of transmission, we can say that Paul’s work had a significant impact on the liturgical prayer of much of the Western Church, but it is too large a claim to say that his work was used throughout the West in the Middle Ages and then lived on in the pages of the Roman breviaries until the reforms of Vatican II — unless we can admit a term like ‘shattered transmission’. With such a concept in hand, however, we can indeed say that it was used, even that it lived on until the Second Vatican Council and that its influence may be felt to some extent even now in the post-conciliar Liturgy of the Hours. But I sense that this is rather different from what many have expressed or thought about Paul’s work in the past. We have to be careful even here. It is rather like saying that the waters of Lake Victoria live on in the deltas of Egypt or even in the Mediterranean. It is true. To some extent, the waters are there, but in a manner difficult to measure, diverted at times and then reverting, mingled and diffused alongside the rains, the contributions of other streams and lakes, and the effluence of many a riverside dwelling for thousands of miles from Burundi to Egypt. To go much further than this is to mistake the nature of Church tradition and literary transmission. It is to commit a similar error as many an adventurer and missionary seeking the source of the Nile. It is to forget the observations of Heraclitus at the very beginnings of Western philosophy. We never step into the same river twice. Similarly, no homiletic collection of Late Antiquity or the early Middle Ages, however august, is used now as it once was, nor shall it ever be so used.

 12 According to Étaix, ‘Le Grand Lectionnaire de Corbie’, p. 256.

a  ha n dl i s t o f w i t n e s s e s to pau l t he d e aco n’s ho mi li ary

A final note about the organization of this handlist. In terms of periodization, one of my primary divisions here is between (a) those ninth- and tenth-century manu­scripts that may reasonably be described as Carolingian or immediately post-Carolingian, and (b) those from the eleventh century and beyond. The Carolingian manu­scripts have been the primary area of this study, and I foreground them here for reasons that should be obvious. This has remained a practical division, both during my initial research and now. As readers will see, from the eleventh century onwards, the number of manu­script witnesses dramatically increases, and from that point on most of my descriptions shall be less specific. There are more witnesses from the eleventh century than from the ninth and tenth combined, and the number only climbs from there until the era of printing begins in the late fifteenth century. I have to admit some imprecision in my categories for the manu­scripts, just as there is some ambiguity regarding the century to which some of these manu­scripts ought to be allocated. Some scholars will surely decide that this or that manu­script belong in another category or time. I have, however, divided the manu­scripts as seemed most fitting to me at this time — knowing that this is the first list of its kind, and that others will do us all a great service in offering any corrections.



Manuscripts from the Ninth and Tenth Centuries Angers, Médiathèque Toussaint MS 235 (226) (W Francia, probably St Serge, s. x): integral, winter volume.

Avignon, Archives Départementales MS 2.G.94 (Provence, a monastery or church dedicated to St Pons, s. x): shattered; PD mixed with AF, Augustine, John Chrysostom, Fulgentius, and lives of St Pons.

Avranches, La Bibliothèque patrimoniale MS 211 (Mont Saint-Michel, c. 991–1009): fols 156–209; shattered; texts extracted and reordered into lectionary for patronal feast and dedication festival (GPD II:125, II:126; II:129; II:127, II:128).

Bamberg, Staatsbibliothek MS Patr. 155 (B.I.3) + Munich, BSB, Clm 6264a (Freising, s. ix2/4): PD, partial summer volume.

Basel, Öffentliche Bibliothek der Universität MS B.III.2 (St Gall, s. ix2/4): partial winter volume of PD (Advent to Lent), with some texts rearranged; others added (e.g. Leo, Augustine, Jerome, Bede). MS B.IV.26 (St Gall, 883x912): abbreviated (Christmas to Pentecost II).

269

270

a p p e n di x 5

MS B.VI.3 (St Gall (?), s. ix/x): incomplete summer volume, abbreviated (homilies of Gregory omitted; also Maximus and Ps-Maximus) and augmented (texts of Bede, Augustine, Jerome, etc. added).13

Benevento, Biblioteca Capitolare MS 8 (Benevento (?), s. x): collection for Epiphany to Palm Sunday, perhaps derived from or influenced by PD, with additions from Augustine, Gregory, Jerome, Chromatius, and many others for the ferial days of Lent.14

Burgos, Cathedral Library MS 1 (Spain, s. xex): PD and Smaragdus, Expositio libri comitis, and other additions.15

Cambrai, Médiathèque d’agglomération de Cambrai MS 365 (NE Francia, probably Cambrai Cathedral, s. x1/2): PD abbreviated; selection of texts for Advent, Christmas, and Epiphany, with three entries from Homiliary of Saint-Mihiel. Manu­script begins with Song of Songs. MS 546 (Arras, s. ix3/3): PD shattered; texts extracted for saints’ feasts.

Chartres, Médiathèque l’Apostrophe MS 57 (84) (W Francia, perhaps Chartres Cathedral or Saint-Père de Chartres, s. x): summer volume; damaged in bombings of World War II.

Co­logny, Fondation Martin Bodmer CB 128 (Reichenau, s. ix2/4): integral summer volume.

Cordoba, Cathedral Library MS 1 (Castile, 953x960): PD summer volume, joined with Smaragdus, Expositio libri comitis (fols 4v–181r) and additional texts from Gregory the Great, Bede, Ps-Maximus. Attached to the end is Fulgentius, De Incarnatione 1–16 with preface.16  13 This manu­script came to my attention in 2019, and I could not consult it before publication. The rationale of organization is similar to Darmstadt, Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek, Hs. 523 (W Germany, s. x): most PD texts are present, Gregory’s homilies are omitted, due to explicit mention of another volume. It is joined to letters of Alcuin and Jerome and the Creed of Toledo.  14 Lidia Buono (in private correspondence) has suggested to me that Paul’s work was not widely disseminated in the area of Benevento. Many Beneventan homiliaries surveyed by Lidia Buono and Eugenia Russo, however, contain authors in common with Paul’s work, suggesting a similar appraisal of the patristic inheritance. I did not have the time to survey their full work before the publication of this study, particularly because of the disruptions and library closures caused by COVID-19. See Buono and Russo, Homiliaria Beneventana I.  15 Some confusion is evident here. A key article by Raymond Étaix states that MS 2 combines Paul and Smaragdus, rather than MS 1. MS 2 appears to be related to PD, but would require further study and does not seem to be the manu­script mentioned by Étaix, ‘Le “Smaragde” de Cordoue et autres manuscrits apparentés’.  16 In the hand of the scribe Florentius de Valeranica.

a  ha n dl i s t o f w i t n e s s e s to pau l t he d e aco n’s ho mi li ary

Darmstadt, Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek Hs. 523 (W Germany, s. x): winter volume, abbreviated (homilies of Gregory removed).

Fulda, Hessische Landesbibliothek MS AA 12 (SW Germany, s. ix3/3; Carolingian prov. as gift of Bp Salomo to St Mary’s Cathedral, Constance): abbreviated and augmented Lent volume. See note regarding Munich, BSB, Clm 14386 and other witnesses to this collection. Fols 1r–34r contain Augustine’s Enchiridion.

Karlsruhe, Badische Landesbibliothek MS Aug. perg. 14 (SW Germany, s. ix1/2): abbreviated volume, Septuagesima to Holy Saturday, lightly augmented (selections from homiliary of Agimond and from Jerome, Bede). MS Aug. perg. 15 (SW Germany, s. ix1/2): abbreviated volume, Easter to St Peter & St Paul, lightly augmented. MS Aug. perg. 16 (Reichenau, s. x1/2): PD shattered; texts extracted for feast days. Highly decorated. MS Aug. perg. 19 (Reichenau, s. ix2/4): abbreviated volume, from the Sunday after St Peter & Paul to St Andrew and commune sanctorum. MS Aug. perg. 29 (Reichenau, s. ix2/4): partial winter volume, but containing entire preface of the homiliary (Dedicatory verse, Epistola Generalis, capitula lectionum). MS Aug. perg. 37 (Reichenau, s. x): PD abbreviated; texts for Sundays only. MS Aug. perg. 91 (Reichenau, s. x): PD abbreviated; Christmas to Holy Saturday. MS begins with hymns and other patristic texts.

London, British Library Additional MS 16960 (W Germany, s. ix2/4): damaged volume, but preserved capitula indicate pure abbreviation; no Gospel homilies, only sermons drawn from the winter and summer volumes.

Manchester, John Rylands Library MS 12 (Luxeuil, s. ix2/4): shattered; extraction of PD material for saints’ days.

Monza, Biblioteca Capitolare Monza g8/115 (N Italy (Monza?), s. x): damaged winter volume, preserving preface.

Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek Clm 4533 (SW Germany, s. ix3/4; s. xi prov.: Benediktbeuern): integral winter witness, missing some original folios. Preserves homiliary’s preface. Clm 4534 (SW Germany, s. ix3/4; s. xi prov.: Benediktbeuern): rearranged summer witness. Clm 6264a: see entry for Bamberg, Staatsbibliothek, MS Patr. 155 (B.I.3).

27 1

272

a p p e n di x 5

Clm 14380 (Regensburg, s. ix1/3): abbreviated witness, including winter and summer material. Some content shared with Clm 17194. Clm 14386 (Bavaria, perhaps Regensburg, s. ix3/3): abbreviated and augmented Septuagesima to Palm Sunday homiliary.17 Clm 17194 (Bavaria, s. ix1/2): shattered witness; volume for Advent to Octave of Christmas. Some content overlaps with Clm 14380; transmits Alan of Farfa’s preface, sermons 1–9, 12–15 of his collection.

Orléans, Médiathèque Gambetta MS 38 (NE Francia, s. xinc): shattered witness; pp. 185–249 are an extraction from PD of rare Ps-Maximus and Ps-John Chrysostom sermons, in the midst of a manu­script of OT commentaries. MS 197 (NE Francia, perhaps Soissons, s. x, xi, and xii): PD shattered; excerpts in passionary. MS 341 (NE Francia, s. x), pp. 46–90: shattered witness; texts of PD interspersed with Roman homiliary and other texts.

Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France MS lat. 1897 (Tours, s. x): rearranged, augmented summer volume of PD. MS lat. 9604 (Tours, s. ixmed, for St Germain d’Auxerre): integral summer volume of PD. MS lat. 11699 (NE Francia, s. ix1/2): integral summer volume of PD. MS lat. 12404 (Tours, s. ixmed; prov.: St Germain-des-Prés, s. x): integral summer volume of PD. MS lat. 16819. This manu­script comprises two originally separate volumes, bound together in the early modern period:18 – MS lat. 16819.A — Fols 1–137 (NE Francia, likely destined for St Mary’s, Compiègne, s. ix3/4): integral winter volume of PD; partially preserves preface. – MS lat. 16819.B — Fols 138–334 (NE Francia, probably Compiègne, s. x): summer volume, rearranged and heavily amplified with Rabanus, Alcuin, many others. MS NAL 2322 (Tours, s. ix2/4): integral summer volume of PD.

 17 Other witnesses included BAV, MS Vat. lat. 1278 (N Italy, s. ixex); Cividale, Museo Civico, ex Capitolare LXVII (s. xiimed); Udine, Biblioteca Capitolare, Cap. 21 (c. 1243); Graz, Uni­ versitätsbibliothek, MS 238 (s. xi2/2); Admont, Stiftsbibliothek, MS 120 (s. xiex); Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, MSS 1557 (Mondsee, s. x), 1016 (Mondsee, s. xiii), 4456, fols 5–81 (s. xv). Raymond Étaix suggested more have survived. Étaix, ‘Un homéliaire quadragésimal du ixe siècle’.  18 The precise division of the manu­script is elusive, in terms of codico­logical evidence, due to the movement of quires during its rebinding, which has obscured the gatherings. I have for now marked it near the division between the winter and summer volumes, where there are also shifts in style of handwriting and decoration. Before consultation, I did not know 16819 was such a large and complicated manu­script, and my consultation was cut short by my need to deliver a paper at a conference elsewhere in Paris that same day.

a  ha n dl i s t o f w i t n e s s e s to pau l t he d e aco n’s ho mi li ary

Saint-Omer, Bibliothèque d’Agglomération MS 202 (NE Francia, probably St Bertin, s. x4/4): abbreviated PD witness; Advent to Holy Saturday; primarily Gospel homilies.19

St Gall, Stiftsbibliothek CSG 423 (St Gall, s. xex): homiliary, Easter to Advent, PD derived, with other additions, pp. 14–416. Lessons abbreviated. Other feasts added later: pp. 1–13. Other additions: pp. 417–18, 422. CSG 425 (St Gall, s. x/xi): homiliary, Christmas to Second Sunday of Lent, PD, abbreviated witness. Manu­script now missing many folios at end and perhaps beginning.20 CSG 426 (NW Italy, s. ix): pp. 253–73, Christmas lections, PD I:16–18, and two sermons of St Augustine, within a manu­script of the Liber Scintillarum. CSG 430 (St Gall, 850x872): augmented PD volume, Advent to Annunciation, beautifully illuminated. Details of production in chapters above. CSG 431 (St Gall, 850x872): augmented PD volume, Septuagesima to Easter. Details of production in chapters above. CSG 432 (St Gall, s. ix2/4): integral summer witness, Easter to St Andrew, commune sanctorum.21 Significant additions for feasts and post-Pentecost Sundays on pp. 465–542, mostly homilies of Gregory, Bede, Jerome, and Ps-Augustine. CSG 433 (St Gall, 883x912): Homiliary for saints’ feasts, drawing on PD and numerous lives and passions of the saints.22 CSG 434 (St Gall, 872x883): Homiliary for post-Pentecost Sundays, drawing on PD and additional texts from Gregory, Bede, Jerome, and others.

Stuttgart, Württembergische Landesbibliothek MS HB VII 57 (St Gall, 883x912): abbreviated PD witness, Christmas to Dominica Indulgentiae (Passion Sunday), with commune sanctorum; primarily Gospel homilies.

Toulouse, Bibliothèque d’Étude et du Patrimoine MS 1013 (s. x or xi): fols 199–245; PD augmented with Bede and Smaragdus.

 19 Manu­script’s capitula announce that it contains forty homilies, but the capitula and contents comprise only thirty entries.  20 Significant s. xi marginal additions, pp. 1–4 (Commentary on Lord’s Prayer?).  21 Directly related to Co­logny, MS CB 128.  22 Primary saints’ collection begins on p. 60 and originally extended beyond current end of manu­script, but creedal commentary of St Augustine begins on p. 44, beautifully illumi­ nated with an image, and appears part of original collection, written entirely by Notker the Stammerer. Rare texts for feasts, including Aileranus Scottus, Interpretatio mystica pro­geni­torum Domini Iesu Christi. Hymn (Ecce dierum numerus) written onto p. 707. Pp. 1–43 contains additions for St Andrew, St Gall, St Othmar, St Benedict, and St Martin, prefaced with capitula lectionum.

27 3

2 74

a p p e n di x 5

Troyes, Médiathèque du Grand Troyes MS 159 (Moutier-la-Celle (?), s. ix or x): PD summer volume.

Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana MS Ottob. lat. 106 (St Cecilia’s, Rome, s. x or xi): summer homiliary, PD derived with many additions; texts from Agimond, Gregory, Bede, and Leo.23 MS Vat. lat. 1278 (N Italy, s. ixex): Lent homiliary, PD derived with many additions.24

Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek MS 1557 (Mondsee, s. x): Lent homiliary, PD derived with many additions.25



Fragments from the Ninth and Tenth Centuries Augsburg, Universitätsbibliothek Codex II.1, 2° 100 (Germany, s. x): in binding of fourteenth-century glossary. Codex II.1, 2° 136 (s. ix2/2): in binding of fifteenth-century MS (GPD I:8, 12, 13). Codex II.1, 2° 177 (s. ix2/2): in binding of fifteenth-century MS. Codex II.1, 2° 180 (s. ix2/2): in binding of fourteenth-century MS (GPD I:3, 11). Codex II.1, 2° 182 (s. ix2/2): GPD I:9, 10.

Basel, Öffentliche Bibliothek der Universität MS N.I.6, no. 10a–b (Germany, s. xmed): fragments of Bede, Homeliae II.10, II.17, II.19; Leo, Sermo 79; likely a fragment of an augmented PD homiliary.

Bloomington, Indiana State Uni­ver­sity, Lilly Library MS Poole 38 + Detroit, MI, Public Library, MS 1 + New Haven, CT, Yale Uni­ ver­sity, Beinecke Rare Book and Manu­script Library, Marston MS 151 + Los Angeles, Uni­ver­sity of California, MS 2/IX/ITA (NW Italy, s. ix/x): fragmentary winter volume, minimal apparent alterations.

Copenhagen, Det Kongelige Bibliotek Frag 19/XIV (Germany (?), s. ixmed): GPD II:57.

Detroit, MI, Public Library MS 1: fragmentary; see entry for Bloomington, Indiana State Uni­ver­sity, Lilly Library, MS Poole 38.

 23 Rare Augustinian texts shared with Spanish and English manu­scripts of the tenth to the twelfth centuries; additions particularly for saints of papal basilicas: St Cecilia, St Martin, St Clement, Sts Peter and Paul, and the Assumption of Mary.  24 See note regarding BSB, Clm 14386 (s. ix) above.  25 See note regarding BSB, Clm 14386 (s. ix) above.

a  ha n dl i s t o f w i t n e s s e s to pau l t he d e aco n’s ho mi li ary

Douai, La Bibliothèque Marceline Desbordes-Valmore Frags. in MS 47 + MS 306 + 344 (?) + MS 345 (NE Francia, s. ixex): PD and Bavarian homiliary. Frags. in MS 255 + MS 275 + MS 314 (Francia, perhaps in the region of Paris, s. ix): fragments of PD summer volume.

Düsseldorf, Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek Fragment K16:Z04/04A (Mainz, s. ix1/2).

Eichstätt, Universitätsbibliothek Cod. St 461 (s. ixex): fragments of PD II:53, II:54, II:62 in sixteenth-century manu­script.

Freiburg im Breisgau, Universitätsbibliothek Hs. 483.6 (around St Amand, s. ixinc). Hs. 1122.1 (Francia, s. ix/x).

Göttingen, Georg-August-Universität Diplomatischer Apparat, Mappe I 1a (probably W Francia, s. ixmed): GPD II:22, 23.

Graz, Steiermärkisches Landesarchiv Cod. 894 + Linz, Bundesstaatliche Studienbibliothek, MS 612 + Reichersberg, Stiftsbibliothek, no shelfmark (Freising, s. ix2/4).

Hamburg, Museum für Kunst und Gewerbe No shelfmark + Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 29471 (1) (Benediktbeuern, s. ix2/4).

Karlsruhe, Badische Landesbibliothek Fragment Aug. 83 (probably Mainz, s. ix2/4)

Laon, Bibliothèque municipale Fragments in MS 468 (NE Francia, s. ix4/4; s. x prov.: Laon): preserves partial capitula lectionum of summer volume.

Leiden, Bibliotheek der Rijksuniversiteit MS Vossianus latinus F.4.A (NE Francia, s. ix4/4): fragments, preserving majority of winter volume’s preface (Dedicatory verse, Epistola Generalis, table of contents).

Linz, Bundesstaatliche Studienbibliothek MS 612: see entry for Graz, Steiermärkisches Landesarchiv, Cod. 894.

27 5

2 76

a p p e n di x 5

Los Angeles, Uni­ver­sity of California MS 2/IX/ITA: see entry for Bloomington, Indiana State Uni­ver­sity, Lilly Library, MS Poole 38.

Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek Clm 29414 (1) (Germany (?), s. ix1/4): frag. of Ps-Maximus, Homilia 15, likely PD. Clm 29471 (1): see entry for Hamburg, Museum für Kunst und Gewerbe, No shelfmark.

Munich, Stadtarchiv Hist. Verein von Oberbayern, Bernhard Starks Collectaneen VIII (Bl. 471) (s. ix2/4).

New Haven, CT, Yale Uni­ver­sity, Beinecke Rare Book and Manu­script Library MS 481.38 (Germany, s. x/xi): fragment of PD. Marston MS 151: See entry for Bloomington, Indiana State Uni­ver­sity, Lilly Library, MS Poole 38.

Oxford, Corpus Christi College MS 255A (NE Francia, s. x): fragments of homiliary preface.26

Reichersberg, Stiftsbibliothek No shelfmark: see entry for Graz, Steiermärkisches Landesarchiv, Cod. 894.

Reims, Bibliothèque Carnegie MS 116, fols 125r–126v (Reims, s. x additions in a Reims, s. ix3/3 MS):27 Christmas lessons from PD. MS 296.2 (Reims, perhaps St Thierry, s. x1/2 additions in a MS of the same origin and similar date): Christmas lessons from PD with lessons from the Homiliary of Saint-Mihiel.

Wolfenbüttel, Herzog August Bibliothek Fragments in Cod. 365 Helmst. (Mainz, s. ix1/2)

 26 The origin and date are Bischoff ’s conclusion, as recorded in his posthumous Katalog, but Thomson, A Descriptive Catalogue of the Medi­eval Manu­scripts of Corpus Christi College Oxford, p. 134, refers to a personal comment of Michael Lapidge: ‘the script […] was thought by Bernhard Bischoff and Michael Lapidge to be English’.  27 Corrections and common errors demonstrate that this manu­script depends textually on Reims, MS 296.2.

a  ha n dl i s t o f w i t n e s s e s to pau l t he d e aco n’s ho mi li ary



Manuscripts from the Eleventh Century Admont, Stiftsbibliothek MS 120 (s. xiex): Lent homiliary, PD derived with many additions.28

Arras, Médiathèque de l’Abbaye Saint-Vaast MS 841 (491) (Saint-Vaast, c. 1060–80): PD somewhat altered.

Avranches, La Bibliothèque patrimoniale MS 128 (Mont Saint-Michel, s. xi1/2): sermons for entire liturgical year; PD base. MS 129 (Mont Saint-Michel, s. xi2/2): summer homiliary; PD base.

Barcelona, Archivo de la Corona de Aragon Sant Cugat MS 22 (Sant Cugat, s. xi): fols 161–73, short extracts for daily readings after Easter from PD, Gregory the Great, and two other Catalan homiliaries.29

Bourges, La Bibliothèque patrimoniale MS 44 (39) (Chezal-Benoît, s. xi): PD and AF set alongside each other.30

Cambrai, Médiathèque d’agglomération de Cambrai MS 528 (487) (Saint-André-du-Cateau, s. xiex): summer homiliary with sanctorale, PD base. MS 530 (489) (Saint-Sépulchre, s. xi): summer homiliary with sanctorale, PD augmented. MS 544 (Cambrai Cathedral, s. xi): daily Lent homiliary, almost identical to lectionary of Corbie.

Cam­bridge, Pembroke College MSS 23 and 24 (St Denis or St Germain-des-Prés, s. xi; prov.: Bury St Edmunds, s. ximed): PD augmented, companion volumes.

Cam­bridge, Uni­ver­sity Library MSS Ii.2.19 and Kk.4.13 (Norwich, s. xi/xii): PD augmented, companion volumes.

 28 See note above regarding BSB, Clm 14386 (s. ix).  29 BnF, MS lat. 3806 (perhaps Sant Llorenç del Munt, s. xi); and Tarragona, Biblioteca Provincial, Santes Creus, MS 139 (Cistercian monastery of Santa Creus, s. xiiex). The latter has numerous rare texts, and also contains material from AF.  30 Fols 1–144v: summer of PD with some changes; fols 144v–146v: pro­logue of AF; fols 146v–180v: beginning of AF for summer; fols 181v–183v: twelfth-century addition of Office and Mass for liberation of Jerusalem.

27 7

278

a p p e n di x 5

Canterbury, Cathedral Library MS Add. 127/1 (s. xi): fragment of PD (pars aestivalis). MS U3/20/2 (s. xi): PD, Septuagesima to Easter, sanctorale, commune sanctorum.

Châlons-sur-Marne, Bibliothèque Pompidou31 MS 66 (74) (Saint-Pierre-aux-Monts, s. xi): sanctorale and summer; PD base with AF; homilies of Gregory largely omitted.32 MS 71 (79) (Saint-Pierre-aux-Monts, s. xi): winter homiliary, PD with additions; homilies of Gregory omitted.

Chartres, Médiathèque l’Apostrophe MS 499 (143) (Chartres Cathedral, s. xi): likely the base for the twelfth-century MSS 141, 142, and 144, but now destroyed.33

Douai, La Bibliothèque Marceline Desbordes-Valmore MS 493 (Anchin, s. xi): PD shattered and augmented; full-year lectionary, influenced by Cluny. MS 849 (Marchiennes, s. ximed): illuminated lectionary for primary feasts, all but one entry taken from PD.

Durham, Cathedral Library MS A.III.29 (Durham, before 1096): PD, summer portion with some abbreviation and addition. MS B.II.2 (Durham, before 1096): PD, winter portion with some abbreviation and addition.

Einsiedeln, Stiftsbibliothek Codex 83 (76) (Einsiedeln, s. xi): fragment, text from PD.

Florence, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana MS Pl. 16.36 (s. xi): Homiliary from Advent to Sundays after Pentecost, with commune sanctorum. PD augmented with Remi d’Auxerre and others. MS Pl. 16.41 (s. xi): winter homiliary, PD augmented with daily Lent readings and other texts. MS Pl. 16.42 (s. xi): summer homiliary, PD augmented. MS Pl. 17.37 (s. xi): summer homiliary with partly divided temporale and sanctorale; distinct saints’ feasts. MS Pl. 17.38 (s. xi): winter homiliary; PD augmented (unique Origen material?).

 31 MS 73 might also be related to PD, but I have not been able to determine it yet.  32 Foliation complicated from 1–92r.  33 Mentioned in Wilmart, ‘Membra disiecta’, p. 136.

a  ha n dl i s t o f w i t n e s s e s to pau l t he d e aco n’s ho mi li ary

MS Pl. 17.39 (s. xi): summer homiliary (Holy Week to 25 post-Pentecost, with sanctorale and commune sanctorum), PD augmented. MS Pl. 17.40 (s. xi): winter homiliary, PD augmented. MS Pl. 17.41 (s. xi): winter homiliary, PD augmented. MS Pl. 17.42 (s. xi): winter homiliary, PD augmented. MS Pl. 17.43 (s. xi): summer homiliary, PD augmented; small sanctorale. MS Pl. 18.24 (s. xi/xii): summer homiliary, PD augmented.

Frankfurt am Main, Universitätsbibliothek Fragm. lat. VII 59 (s. xi/xii): fragments of GPD II:78, II:79, II:81–85.

Graz, Universitätsbibliothek MS 238 (s. xi2/2): Lent homiliary, PD base.34 MS 697 (Millstatt (?), s. xi2/2): PD, summer portion; augmented.

Halle, Archiv der Franckeschen Stiftungen Hss.-Hauptabt. P14 (s. xi): single folio fragment.

Lincoln, Cathedral Library MS 158 (C.2.2) (s. xi): portion of PD, winter and sanctorale.35

London, British Library MS Harley 652 (St Augustine’s Canterbury, s. xi/xii): PD augmented, Holy Saturday to Fourth Sunday after Epiphany, with sanctorale. MS Royal 2.C.iii (St Augustine’s, Canterbury, s. xi): PD augmented, Septuagesima to Easter, sanctorale, commune sanctorum.

Monte Cassino, Archivio della Badia36 Cod. Casin. 98 (Monte Cassino, s. xi, close to 1072): homiliary for feasts, PD shattered. Cod. Casin. 99 (Monte Cassino, c. 1072): homiliary for feasts, PD amplified, Christmas to Pentecost. Dedication volume during abbacy of Desiderius. Cod. Casin. 100 (S. Italy, s. xiinc): winter homiliary from St Andrew to beginning of Lent, Easter to Fourth Sunday before Advent (?), PD amplified with Gregory, Augustine, Ambrose, Ps-Maximus, and others; pp. 1–14 added later. Cod. Casin. 102 (S. Italy, s. xiinc): summer homiliary, Holy Saturday to St Andrew, PD amplified with Gregory, Bede, Ps-Augustine, Ps-Maximus, Ps-Leo, Paul the Deacon, Peter Damian, and others.

 34 See note regarding BSB, Clm 14386 (s. ix) above.  35 See Lincoln, MS 142, which is s. xii. This manu­script is closely linked to London, British Library, MS Royal 2.C.iii, and Cam­bridge, Uni­ver­sity Library, MS Kk.4.13.  36 These dates for eleventh-century MSS from Monte Cassino are largely drawn from Newton, The Scriptorium and Library at Monte Cassino, as well as Orofino, I codici decorati dell’archivio di Monte Cassino, though other works were consulted.

27 9

280

a p p e n di x 5

Cod. Casin. 103 (perhaps St Michael in Oliveto, s. xiinc):37 winter homiliary, Advent II to IV post Epiphany; PD derived/amplified. Cod. Casin. 104 (Monte Casino, c. 1060–65): summer homiliary, Holy Saturday to Feast of St Paul; PD derived, amplified with Augustine, Ps-Augustine, Ambrose, Bede, Maximus. Cod. Casin. 106 (Monte Cassino, 1058x1070): winter homiliary, Advent II to first Saturday of Lent; PD shattered; largely texts from outside his collection, particularly those of Augustine. Cod. Casin. 107 (Monte Cassino, 1071x1087): winter homiliary, Advent to Sundays of Lent, along with major saints’ feasts. PD derived, amplified with Augustine, Ps-Augustine. Cod. Casin. 108 (Monte Cassino, 1058x1087): homiliary, Lent to Fourth Sunday after Pentecost. PD derived, amplified with Augustine, Jerome, Gregory, and others. Cod. Casin. 109 (Monte Cassino, c. 1060–65): summer homiliary, St John the Baptist to Advent. PD derived, amplified with Augustine, Ps-Augustine, Origen, Latin Chrysostom, Jerome, Latin Epiphanius, Hilary, and others. Work of scribe Grimoald. Cod. Casin. 110 (Monte Cassino, 1071x1087): lectionary, Advent to Octave of Pentecost, with patristic and biblical texts, lives and legends of the saints. PD shattered. Cod. Casin. 111 (Monte Cassino, 1058x1066): summer homiliary, PD amplified with Gregory, Bede, Ps-Augustine, Ps-Leo, Eusebius Gallicanus, Peter Chryso­logus, and others.38 Cod. Casin. 112 (Monte Cassino, 1072x1087): summer homiliary, Holy Saturday to Advent, commune sanctorum. PD amplified with Gregory, Augustine, Leo, Maximus, Jerome, Peter Damian, and others. Cod. Casin. 113 (Monte Cassino, 1058x1072): daily homiliary, Lent to Sixth Feria of Easter, PD derived. Many additions from Jerome, Origen, John Chrysostom, Bede, Ambrose, and others. Cod. Casin. 114 (Monte Cassino, 1058x1087): summer homiliary, Easter to Four­ teenth Sunday after Pentecost, PD amplified with Augustine and others.

Montpellier, Faculté de Médicine MS H 59 (Saint-Bénigne de Dijon, s. xiinc): PD, augmented.39

 37 Newton, The Scriptorium and Library at Monte Cassino, p. 189, notes the presence of a ‘contemporary imprecation specifying’ the manu­script belonged to St Michael, and reports the position of Herbert Bloch that it belonged to the monastic house across the valley from Monte Cassino. Notably, this manu­script diverges significantly in its pattern of rubrics and includes the remarkable note that a homily of Origen was catholice correcta by Bede. See the chapters above for the significance of this rubric.  38 Several significant rubrical changes in this MS.  39 Paired with Troyes, Médiathèque du Grand Troyes, MS 154. Raymond Étaix’s ‘Repertoire’, p. 30, notes a manu­script in Paris related to this one, but without full biblio­graphical information.

a  ha n dl i s t o f w i t n e s s e s to pau l t he d e aco n’s ho mi li ary

Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek Clm 6256 (Freising or Lotharingia, c. 1000): fols 1v–66v, abbreviated PD winter volume, now incomplete. Clm 14039 (Regensburg, St Emmeram, 1025x1030): summer homiliary, PD derived, beginning at Easter Vigil; sanctorale and commune sanctorum.40

New Haven, CT, Yale Uni­ver­sity, Beinecke Rare Books and Manu­script Library MS 481.25 (S Germany, s. xi2/2): fragment of PD. MS 481.35 (France (?), s. xi): fragment of PD. MS 484.16 (NE France (?), s. xi/xii): fragment of PD.

Orléans, Médiathèque Gambetta MS 155 (132) (Fleury, s. xi): Christmas to Easter; PD augmented with old homiliary of Fleury and various rare collections of Augustine.

Oxford, Bodleian Library MS lat. liturg. b. 2 (Stavelot, St Remaclus (?), s. xi): summer homiliary, PD augmented. MS Lat. Th. c. 3 (31382) (Italy, s. xi/xii): fols 3–4, containing GPD I:9, I:10, I:11. MS Laud. Misc. 157 (639) (Würzburg, s. xi): PD, pars aestivalis, augmented with Leo and Eusebius Gallicanus; modelled on Karlsruhe, BLB, MS Aug. perg. 15 (see above).

Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France MS lat. 3776 (Abbey of Trinité de Fecamp, s. xi): Homiliarium Fiscamnense. Fols 1–34 are partly PD. MS lat. 3777 (SE France, s. xi2/2): Homiliarium, pars hiemalis. AF and PD. MS lat. 3779 (Made for Cathedral of Saint-Vincent de Chalon-sur-Saône, s. xi): fols 1–11v contain GPD I:15bic, a–c; I:16; I:19; I:24; I:25; I:26.41 MS lat. 3780 (Abbey of Moissac (?), s. ximed and xiex): fols 1–160 are mostly PD; fols 161–86v, a second part of the manu­script, are a mix of PD and other things. MS lat. 3783 (Abbey of Moissac (?), s. ximed): mix of AF, PD, and various supplements, but not PD’s Gospel homilies, it seems. MS lat. 3784 (mixed text): extracts from AF on fols 2–13v (N Italy, s. viii); PD on fols 14–42v (Saint-Martial de Limoges, s. xi). MS lat. 3785 (Saint-Martial de Limoges, s. xi, after 1034): fols 13–362v, PD, AF, and Caesarius. MS lat. 3786 (Saint-Maur-des-Fosses, s. xiinc): fols 1–258, PD, AF, and Caesarius for the summer.

 40 Related to the Uta Codex (evangelistary from Regensburg, c. 1025), BSB, Clm 13601.  41 Remainder is lives of the saints.

281

282

a p p e n di x 5

MS lat. 3791 (SE France, s. xi/xii): fols 1–261, AF, PD. MS lat. 3802 (s. xi): fols 141–260v, PD sermons, Advent to Easter, Rogation to Pentecost, fasts of the seventh month. MS lat. 3822 (s. xi2/2): homiliary, material from AF and PD. MS lat. 5302 (Catalonia (?), s. xi): Scriptural, hagio­graphic, and patristic texts from Advent to Easter Week, including texts for each day of Lent; PD, with others from Gregory the Great, Maximus II, Augustine, Jerome, Bede, and others. MS lat. 5304 (Eastern Pyrénées, s. xi2/2): mixed lectionary for 1 December to Third Sunday after Epiphany; patristic texts from PD, AF, along with from Bede, Gregory the Great, Augustine, Ps-Augustine, and others. MS lat. 11752 (Saint Germain-des-Prés, s. xi): PD with alterations. MS NAL 2176 (Silos, s. xi2/2): PD, Smaragdus, Expositio libri comitis, and Spanish authors from homiliary of Toledo.42 MS NAL 2177 (Silos, s. xi): PD and Smaragdus, Expositio libri comitis.

Reading, Uni­ver­sity Library MS St George’s Guild (Silos, s. xi): PD, Smaragdus, Expositio libri comitis, and homilies of Gregory the Great and Maximus II.

Reims, Bibliothèque Carnegie MSS 293–95 (Cathedral Chapter, s. xi): PD, heavily augmented. MS 297 (St Thierry, s. xiinc or ximed): PD, pars hiemalis, with additions from Maximus II, Pseudo-Augustine, and John Chrysostom.

Rouen, Bibliothèque municipale Villon MS 261 (A 456) (N France, s. xi/xii): fols 1–175; Advent to Lent readings primarily PD. MS 619 (A 175) (Saint-Maurice d’Angers, s. xi): sanctorale lectionary; fols 1v–153v largely from PD. MS 1408 (Y 109) ( Jumièges, s. xiex): fols 207r–246r; GPD I:10–40, with some omissions and two additions.

Saint-Omer, Bibliothèque d’Agglomération MS 79 (Notre Dame de Saint-Omer, s. xi and xii), full year homiliary; PD augmented with Haymo, Peter Chryso­logus, Eusebius Gallicanus. Paired with MSS 186 and 187. Lent portions similar to ‘grand lectionary of Corbie’. MSS 186–87 (Notre Dame de Saint-Omer, s. xi): PD augmented with Haymo.43

 42 London, British Library, Add. MS 30853 (Silos, s. x/xi). See detailed record online: .  43 Two MSS not originally joined as current. MS 186 fol. 1 to MSS 187 fol. 27v, were originally a companion to MS 79.

a  ha n dl i s t o f w i t n e s s e s to pau l t he d e aco n’s ho mi li ary

Salisbury, Cathedral Library MS 179 (s. xi): PD, Easter to Ascension, sanctorale.

Santillana del Mar, Biblioteca de la Colegiata Fragment (Region of Burgos, s. xi): PD and Smaragdus, Expositio libri comitis.

St Gall, Stiftsarchiv Fragments in Codices Fab. IV, X, XII, and XIII (Reichenau, s. xi): respectively, GPD I:23a–b, I:22–23; I:17–18; I:19; I:26; I:33.

Toulouse, Bibliothèque d’Étude et du Patrimoine MS 497 (Saint-Gatien, s. xi): PD augmented.

Tours, Bibliothèque municipale MS 497 (Saint-Gatien, s. xi): PD augmented. MS 1013 (s. x or xi): fols 199–245; PD augmented with Bede and Smaragdus.

Troyes, Médiathèque du Grand Troyes MS 154 (Saint-Bénigne de Dijon, s. xiinc) PD summer volume, augmented.44

Tulln, Stadtarchiv Cod. 18 (Lorsch, around 1000), fols I and I*: fragments of texts by Bede, arranged with Office materials. Likely drawn from PD.

Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana MS Pal. lat. 428 (Lorsch, s. xi1/2): winter homiliary, PD abbreviated. MS Pal. lat. 429 (Lorsch, s. xi1/2): summer homiliary, PD abbreviated. MS Vat. lat. 8562 (S Germany, s. xi): winter homiliary, PD augmented. MS Vat. lat. 8563 (S Germany, s. xi): summer homiliary, PD augmented.

Vendôme, Bibliothèque municipale MS 42 (Trinité de Vendôme, s. xi and xii): full-year temporale; PD, AF, Heiric, and others.

Worcester, Cathedral Library MSS F 92, F 93, F 94 (s. xi/xii; prov.: Worcester): PD companion volumes, augmented.

 44 Paired with Montpellier, Faculté de Médecine, MS H 59.

283

284

a p p e n di x 5



Manuscripts from the Twelfth Century Amiens, Bibliothèque Louis Aragon MS 69 (s. xii): fols 129–83, PD from Advent to Epiphany. MS 142–43 (Corbie (?), s. xiimed): winter and summer homiliaries; PD shattered and augmented; Cluny lectionary adapted for Corbie. MS 144 (s. xii; prov.: Corbie or Saint-Laurent-au -Bois): large homiliary; PD augmented.45 MS 145 (Selincourt (?), s. xii): sanctorale; PD augmented. MS 146 (s. xii): homiliary, Advent to Pentecost; PD augmented; related to lectionary of Corbie, marked for secular use.

Angers, Médiathèque Toussaint MS 122 (Pontron, s. xii): Cistercian lectionary for full year; PD base.

Arras, Médiathèque de l’Abbaye Saint-Vaast46 MS 8 (7) (Mont-Saint-Eloi, s. xiiinc): partial winter lectionary; PD augmented with AF and others, like lectionary of Corbie.47 MS 796 (21) (Mont-Saint-Eloi, s. xiiex): lectionary Advent to Trinity and sanctorale; PD augmented with AF and others, like lectionary of Corbie. MS 822 (20) (Mont-Saint-Eloi, s. xiiex): Advent to Christmas; PD augmented with AF and others, like lectionary of Corbie.

Berlin, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz MS Ham. 310 (N Italy, s. xii): homiliary, PD derived, with rare Augustinian texts. MS Ham. 394 (SE Germany, s. xii): PD, summer portion. MS Lat. Oct 402 (probably Cîteaux for La Bussière, c. 1132): Cistercian breviary, PD base, before first and second Cistercian recensions.48

Cambrai, Médiathèque d’agglomération de Cambrai MS 532 (491) (Cambrai Cathedral, s. xii): summer homiliary, PD augmented. MS 533 (492) (Cambrai Cathedral, s. xii): winter homiliary, PD augmented.

Cam­bridge, Peterhouse MS 130 (German, c. 1145x1153, likely made for Kloster Holzen).

 45 Like BnF, MS lat. 11701 and a significant group of manu­scripts related to Corbie.  46 Perhaps also MSS 9 and 10 are PD, but not clear without personal consultation.  47 Completed by Arras, BM, MS 822 (20) and 796 (21). Like BnF, MS lat. 795 (Saint-Nicolas de Tournai).  48 Related to Troyes, Médiathèque du Grand Troyes, MS 807 (Molesmes, s. xii2/2), a summer breviary, PD base. See Waddell, The Summer-Season Molesme Breviary; Waddell, The Primitive Cistercian Breviary. This brevi­ary has numerous peculiarities, in comparison to later Cistercian texts: in particular, the inclu­sion of a variety of texts that would later be excluded and a tendency not to attribute authors properly.

a  ha n dl i s t o f w i t n e s s e s to pau l t he d e aco n’s ho mi li ary

Chartres, Médiathèque l’Apostrophe MS 11 (22) (Chartres Cathedral, s. xii): sanctorale taken from PD. MS 138 (151) (Chartres Cathedral, s. xii): Advent to Pentecost lectionary, with sanctorale; PD base.

Chaumont, Médiathèque les silos MS 23 (Langres, s. xii): winter homiliary with sanctorale; PD base.49

Cividale, Museo Civico Ex Capitolare LXVII (s. xiimed): Lent homiliary, PD base.50

Dijon, Bibliothèque municipale MS 114 (82), fols 2r–102v (c. 1183x1188): full-year Cistercian-type lectionary; PD base.

Epinal, Bibliothèque municipale MS 20 (3) (Moyenmoutier (?), s. xii): summer volume, PD and AF, along with Eusebius Gallicanus, Gregory the Great, Caesarius, Jerome, Ps-Augustine, and others.

Florence, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana MS Pl. 14.a (s. xii): winter homiliary, PD augmented. MS Pl. 18.23 (s. xii): summer homiliary, PD augmented.

Frankfurt am Main, Universitätsbibliothek MS Barth. 1 (W Germany, s. xiiex): winter homiliary, PD and AF. MS Barth. 41 (Mid-Rhein, s. xii1/3): summer homiliary, PD, AF, and others.51 MS Barth. 42 (Mid-Rhein, s. xii2/2): summer homiliary, with sanctorale; base of PD, augmented. MS Barth. 66 (S Germany, s. xii2/2): summer homiliary, PD, AF, and others.52 MS Barth. 102 (S Germany, s. xii1/2): winter homiliary, PD, AF, and others.

Graz, Universitätsbibliothek MS 83 (Seckau (?), s. xii, xiv, and xv): twelfth-century portions contain some readings from PD for sanctorale. MS 88 (Seckau (?), s. xii1/2 and s. xv2/2): PD, summer portion, augmented and altered.

 49 Detailed analysis at Institut de recherche et d’histoire des textes. MS 25 complements it, not clear that PD is part.  50 See note regarding BSB, Clm 14386 (s. ix) above.  51 Some texts related to those in MS Barth. 42 (s. xii2/2): the ‘Guda’ homiliary.  52 Includes a unique text also found in a manu­script of Nuremberg (StB, Cent. I 11).

285

286

a p p e n di x 5

Halle, Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek Sachsen-Anhalt Qu. Cod. 122 (Premonstratensians, Leitzkau (?), s. xii and xiii): fols 1r–7r, 102r–127r; breviary based on PD and Bavarian homiliary, Rabanus, Alcuin, and others.

Hereford, Cathedral Library MS O.III.1 (St Peter’s Abbey, Gloucester, s. xiiinc): fols 140–58 contain texts on the Nativity and Epiphany common to various PD-derived manu­scripts.53 MS O.VII.4 (Hereford Cathedral, s. xiimed): homiliary Sundays of the year, primarily PD augmented with Bede. MS P.VIII.7 (Hereford Cathedral, s. xii2/2): homiliary for sanctorale and commune sanctorum, PD-derived with many additions and subtractions.54

Laon, Bibliothèque municipale MS 315 (Prémontrés de Cuissy, s. xii): common of saints, PD augmented.

León, Real Colegiata de San Isidoro MS 9 (Spanish, s. xii): PD, Smaragdus, Expositio libri comitis, and Fulgentius.

Lille, Bibliothèque municipale classée MS 814 (65) (Phalempin, s. xii): Palm Sunday to last Sunday after Pentecost; PD heavily augmented; similar to Corbie’s great lectionary. Paired with MS 815.55 MS 815 (64) (Phalempin, s. xii): winter homiliary, PD augmented. MS 816 (66) (Phalempin, s. xii): sanctoral homiliary; PD augmented.

Lincoln, Cathedral Library MS 142 (Lincoln, s. xiimed): summer homiliary, PD augmented.

Madrid, Archivo Histórico Nacional MS 950B–951B (Avila, s. xiiex): PD, Smaragdus, Expositio libri comitis, and Fulgentius.

Monte Cassino, Archivio della Badia MS 115 (s. xii–xiii): Homiliary (for the refectory?), primarily major feasts. PD shattered.

Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek Clm 7382 (S Germany, s. xiiinc): winter homiliary, PD. Paired with 7383. Clm 7383 (S Germany, s. xiiinc): summer homiliary, PD. Paired with 7382.  53 London, British Library, MS Harley 3027, Salisbury, Cathedral Library, MS 109, Worcester, Cathedral Library, MS F 92, among others.  54 Like Lincoln, MS 142 and Worcester, Cathedral Library, MS F 94.  55 Like the lectionary of Saint-Nicolas-des-Prés: BnF, MSS lat. 795, 805, 806, 809.

a  ha n dl i s t o f w i t n e s s e s to pau l t he d e aco n’s ho mi li ary

New Haven, CT, Yale Uni­ver­sity, Beinecke Rare Books and Manu­script Library MS 481.27 (S Germany or Austria, s. xii): fragment of PD/AF. MS 481.33 (S Germany or Austria, s. xii): fragment of PD/AF. MS 481.34 (Italy, s. xii1/2): fragment of PD/AF MS 484.17 (Italy (?), s. xii): fragment of PD.

Oxford, Bodleian Library MS Bodley 267 (England, s. xii2/2): fols 1–108, Gregory the Great’s Homilies on Ezekiel; fols 109–72, summer volume of PD, with changes. MS Laud. Misc. 153 (Germany, s. xii3/4; prov.: St Kilian’s, Würzburg): homiliary for Pentecost and the Sundays following it; PD-derived with numerous additions from Augustine, Ps-Augustine, Chromatius, and others. Illuminated. MS Laud. Misc. 155b (St Kilian’s Würzburg, s. xii4/4): Christmas to Advent with temporale and some saints’ days; PD rearranged, augmented. Secular lesson markings. MS Laud. Misc. 305 (S Germany, s. xiiinc): PD, winter volume, with additions and subtractions MS Lyell 55 (Reggio-Emilia, St John Baptist’s (?), s. xii): summer homiliary, drawing on PD and Augustine. MS Marshal 4 A (Mons in Hainaut, Belgium (?), s. xii): summer homiliary, PD derived with subtractions. No sanctorale.

Oxford, Magdalen College MS 102 (NE England, s. xii): integral, lightly augmented winter volume, preserving part of the homiliary’s preface.

Paris, Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal MS 162 (Saint-Aroul de Crépy, s. xii): PD shattered and augmented; full year homiliary; adaptation of Cluny’s lectionary. MS 209 (Cistercian Abbey of Vaux-de-Cernay, s. xii): sanctorale and common of saints; augmented PD. MS 470 (French, s. xii): Advent to Ash Wednesday; a mix of PD and AF, similar to the lectionary of Corbie. MS 488 (s. xii or xiii): twelve sermons taken partly from PD.56

Paris, Bibliothèque Mazarine MS 696 (147) (N France (?), s. xii3/3): Lent to Sundays after Pentecost, AF and PD. Perhaps related to lectionary of Corbie.

 56 Similar to Vatican City, BAV, MS Vat. lat. 587, and Médiathèque Gambetta d’Orléans, MS 195.

287

288

a p p e n di x 5

Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France MS lat. 795 (Tournai (?), s. xii3/4): lectionary for St Nicolai de Près; PD base, with many additions from AF. Advent to Epiphany. Companion volume to MS lat. 805, 806, 809.57 MS lat. 805 (Tournai (?), s. xii3/4): lectionary for St Nicolai de Près; PD base, with many additions from AF. Septuagesima to Holy Saturday with daily Lent readings. Companion volume to MS lat. 795, 806, 809. MS lat. 806 (Tournai (?), s. xii3/4): lectionary for St Nicolai de Près; PD base, with many additions from AF. Summer. Companion volume to MS lat. 795, 805, 809. MS lat. 809 (Tournai (?), s. xii3/4): lectionary for St Nicolai de Près; PD base with many additions from AF. Sanctorale. Companion volume to MS lat. 795, 805, 806. MS lat. 3800 (SW France, s. xii, before 1175): fols 1–120, sanctorale; contains some PD, like other use of Cîteaux lectionaries/homiliaries. MS lat. 3807 (Ile-de-France, s. xii): fols 1–187, PD and AF. MS lat. 3808 (s. xii (before 1175)): sanctorale, contains some PD, like other use of Cîteaux lectionaries/homiliaries. MS lat. 3817 (s. xii, Languedoc): lectionary, pars aestivalis. Some texts could be taken from PD as excerpts, but the current description in the catalogue is unclear. MS lat. 3826 (Benevento (?), s. xii): homiliarium de communi sanctorum, some material from PD. MS lat. 11700 (Corbie, before 1179): PD greatly augmented with additions from AF and many others. ‘Great lectionary of Corbie’: sanctorale, common of saints, daily readings for Lent. MS lat. 11701 (Saint-Nicolas-de-Regny (?), s. xii): winter lectionary. PD greatly augmented with additions from AF and many others. Appears derived from Saint-Laurent-en-Bois’s version of the ‘Great lectionary of Corbie’. MS lat. 11702 (Corbie, before 1179): PD greatly augmented with additions from AF and many others. ‘Great lectionary of Corbie’: winter portion. MS lat. 11703 (Corbie, before 1179): PD greatly augmented with additions from AF and many others. ‘Great lectionary of Corbie’: summer portion. MS lat. 12046 (Saint-Nicolas-de-Regny (?), s. xii): summer sanctorale and commune sanctorum. PD greatly augmented with additions from AF and many others. Appears derived from Saint-Laurent-en-Bois’s version of the ‘Great lectionary of Corbie’. MS lat. 12047 (s. xi/xii): Homilies on the Gospels and fragments. Late provenance: Corbie.

 57 See Étaix, ‘Le Grand Lectionnaire de Corbie’. This collection is related to Corbie’s lectionary, perhaps through another model used by both. The lectionary in Lille, Bibliothèque municipale classée, MSS 815 (64), 814 (65), and 816 (66) (s. xii, prov. Phalempin) is an abbreviated version of the Tournai lectionary.

a  ha n dl i s t o f w i t n e s s e s to pau l t he d e aco n’s ho mi li ary

MS lat. 12406 (Saint-Laurent-au-Bois (?), s. xii): lectionary; summer sanctorale and commune sanctorum. PD greatly augmented with additions from AF and many others. Derived from ‘Great lectionary of Corbie’. MS lat. 12407 (Saint-Laurent-au-Bois (?), s. xii): lectionary; summer temporale. PD greatly augmented with additions from AF and many others. Derived from ‘Great lectionary of Corbie’. MS lat. 12408 (Saint-Nicolas-de-Regny (?), s. xii): summer temporale. PD greatly augmented with additions from AF and many others. Appears derived from Saint-Laurent-en-Bois’s version of the ‘Great lectionary of Corbie’.

Paris, Bibliothèque Sainte-Geneviève MS 124 (Senlis, s. xii/xiii): lectionary, fols 36r–77r contains abbreviated readings from PD. MS 127 (Senlis, s. xii): fols 1–134 is a winter homiliary, PD augmented by Carolingian texts. MS 136 (Notre Dame de Gatines, s. xiiex): winter homiliary, base of PD, augmented in Lent with Rabanus, Jerome, Augustine, and Bede. MS 137 (Notre Dame de Gatines, s. xiiex): summer homiliary and sanctorale, PD augmented.

Périgueux, Archives Départmentales de la Dordogne MS 163 (Cadouin, c. 1120): Cistercian homiliary before Dijon, BM, MS 114; in Waddell’s R1 group.

Pistoia, Archivio Capitolare MS C. 127 (San Zeno, Pistoia (?), s. xii): fols 65–104, extracts from Christmas and Epiphany readings of PD, bound now with a twelfth-century copy of Bede’s Commentary on the Song of Songs.

Pontarlier, Médiathèque municipale MS 17 (32) (Mont-Sainte-Marie (?), c. 1191–92): Cistercian-style breviary for winter; PD shattered.

Reims, Bibliothèque Carnegie MS 21 (Cathedral, s. xii): fol. 1, fragment of a table of a summer homiliary, with PD base. MS 91 (Saint-Remi, s. xii): fols 91v–120v, thirty readings for Lent, all but one from PD. MS 298 (Saint-Thierry, s. xiiex): PD shattered and augmented, Cluny style lectionary. MS 300 (s. xiimed): PD shattered and augmented, Cluny style lectionary. MS 372 (Saint-Thierry, c. 1160–90): fols A–B, PD shattered, table for an exemplar of the Sancti Catholici Patres collection.58  58 Latter found in Vitry-le-François, MS 3; BnF, MSS lat. 11885 and lat. 12409; BAV, Vat. lat. 1277; Troyes, Médiathèque du Grand Troyes, MS 567. Clairvaux exemplars: Troyes,

289

290

a p p e n di x 5

Rome, Biblioteca Vallicelliana MS A.10 (Monte Cassino, s. xii): winter homiliary (Advent to ferias of Lent), PD derived, with additions from Ps-Augustine, Caesarius, Gregory, Isidore, Ambrose, Bede, Ps-Origen, and others.

Saint-Mihiel, Bibliothèque municipale — La Benedictine bibliothèque MS 13 (Saint-Mihiel, s. xii): winter homiliary; PD augmented.59

Saint-Omer, Bibliothèque d’Agglomération MS 27 (Saint-Bertin, s. xii): summer homiliary; PD augmented with Haymo and others. Paired with MS 75. MS 75 (Saint-Bertin, s. xii): winter homiliary; PD augmented with Haymo and others. Partly a copy of MS 79 (s. xi). MS 80 (Notre Dame de Saint-Omer, s. xii): summer homiliary and sanctorale; PD augment. Copy of MSS 186 and 187.

Toledo, Cathedral Library MSS 44.9 and 44.10 (Toledo, s. xii): PD, Smaragdus, Expositio libri comitis, and Fulgentius.

Toulouse, Bibliothèque d’Étude et du Patrimoine MS 336 (Saint-Gatien, s. xii): Bede, plus PD I:2, 41, 61, 64, 86, 90.60 MS 873 (s. xii): fols 178–201, fragments of a homiliary, largely PD.

Troyes, Médiathèque du Grand Troyes MS 36 (Clairvaux, s. xii3/4): Cistercian lectionary before Dijon, BM, MS 114; PD shattered/augmented. MS 188 (Clairvaux, s. xii): PD shattered; collection Sancti Catholici Patres, summer portion. MS 219 (Clairvaux, s. xii): PD shattered; collection Sancti Catholici Patres, winter portion. MS 394 (perhaps Igny, before 1147): Cistercian full-year homiliary before Dijon, BM, MS 114; PD shattered/augmented; in Waddell’s R1 group. MS 454 (Mores, s. xii/xiii): direct copy of Troyes, MS 188 from Clairvaux, but given to Mores; PD shattered; collection Sancti Catholici Patres, summer portion.

Médiathèque du Grand Troyes, MSS 219 and 188. This collection requires reanalysis, as Bouhot’s reconstitution of its original form did not fully label sermons drawn clearly from Paul the Deacon’s homiliary. See Bouhot, ‘L’Homéliaire des Sancti catholici Patres’; Bouhot, ‘Deux exemplaires de l’homéliaire des Sancti catholici Patres’.  59 Many texts common to Montpellier, Faculté de Médecine, MS H 59, the lectionary of SaintBénigne de Dijon.  60 Same collection in Vitry-le-François, MS 37. The examples are partly rare texts of PseudoJohn Chrysostom and of Origen.

a  ha n dl i s t o f w i t n e s s e s to pau l t he d e aco n’s ho mi li ary

MS 567 (Saint-Etienne de Troyes, s. xiiex): PD shattered; collection Sancti Catholici Patres, summer portion. MS 653 (Troyes (?), s. xii): winter homiliary (Advent to Fourth Sunday after Epiphany); PD augmented with various rare texts. MS 807 (Molesmes, s. xii2/2): summer breviary, PD base, augmented with Alcuin, Heiric, Gregory of Tours, Haymo, and many others.61 MS 869 (Clairvaux, before 1147): PD shattered/augmented; temporale of Cistercian homiliary before Dijon, BM, MS 114; in Waddell’s RI group.62

Trier, Stadtbibliothek Hs. 261/1140 2° (N Germany (?), c. 1160–70): PD winter volume (Advent to Vigil of Epiphany), now incomplete.

Valencia, Archivo Capitular MS 78 (Catalonia, s. xii): winter homiliary, Agimond, PD, and others.

Valenciennes, Médiathèque municipale MS 112 (105) (Saint-Amand, s. xii1/4): PD shattered and augmented; Cluny-type lectionary. MS 178 (Saint-Amand, s. xii1/2): PD, pars aestivalis, lightly augmented; paired with MSS 219 and 220 (?).63 MS 219 (Saint-Amand, s. xii1/2): PD, winter portion, augmented. Paired with MSS 178 and 220 (?).

Vendôme, Bibliothèque municipale MS 217 (s. xii/xiii): illustrated lectionary, drawing on PD for Easter, fols 11r–18r.

Verdun, Bibliothèque du Grand Verdun MS 121 (Cathedral (?), s. xii4/4): temporale for Advent to Sunday after Ascension and sanctorale; PD augmented. Paired with MS 122.

Vitry-le-François, Médiathèque Albert Camus MS 3 (Trois-Fontaines, s. xii): PD shattered; collection Sancti Catholici Patres; destroyed in 1944. MS 37 (Trois-Fontaines, s. xii): PD shattered; homilies of Bede with GPD I:2, 41, 61, 64, 86, 90.64

 61 For its relation to Cistercian manu­scripts, see Waddell, The Summer-Season Molesme Breviary; Waddell, The Primitive Cistercian Breviary.  62 Detailed analysis at Institut de recherche et d’histoire des textes.  63 I have seen this manu­script and am not convinced that it belongs to the twelfth century, but to the eleventh. However, I have not seen MSS 219 and 220 to confirm they belong together and are of the same date, as various catalogues declare. MS 220 is a sanctorale, but I need to confirm if it is a PD witness.  64 Like Tours, Bibliothèque Municipale, MS 336.

291

292

a p p e n di x 5

Wolfenbüttel, Herzog August Bibliothek Cod. 1 Weißenburg (SW Germany or E Francia (?), s. xii): winter homiliary; Haymo of Auxerre, with PD and others.



Manuscripts from the Thirteenth Century Amiens, Bibliothèque Louis Aragon MS 150 (Selincourt, s. xiii): full-year biblical and patristic lectionary for the Office; base of PD.

Arras, Médiathèque de l’Abbaye Saint-Vaast MS 792 (446) (Saint-Vaast, s. xiii): brief lectionary for sanctorale and temporale; PD shattered and augmented; Cluny type. MS 801 (464) (Saint-Vaast, s. xiii): winter homiliary; PD modified and augmented, with Augustinians sermons from homiliary of Fleury.

Aschaffenburg, Stiftsbibliothek MS Perg. 3 (Aschaffenburg (?), s. xiiiex): winter volume, PD and AF.65

Autun, Bibliothèque municipale MS S. 7 bis (Saint-Lazare d’Autun, s. xiii and xiv): Advent to March, PD base.

Chartres, Médiathèque l’Apostrophe MS 141 (195) (Chartres Cathedral, c. 1224–34): post-Pentecost lectionary and sanctorale; PD base.66 MS 144 (198) (Chartres Cathedral, c. 1224–34): lectionary for Advent to Second Sunday of Lent; PD with additions.67

Lille, Bibliothèque municipale classée MS 681 (67) (Cistercians of Notre Dame de Loos, s. xiii): lectionary; fols 25–200, winter PD with daily Lent readings supplemented by Haymo and Heiric of Auxerre.

Oxford, Bodleian Library MSS Bodley 473 and 734 (France (?), s. xiii; prov.: Exeter Cathedral): PD’s winter and summer volumes. Numerous North French saints, but likely made for English use with Augustine, Oswald, and Edmund highlighted.

 65 Online at Manu­scripta Mediaevalia, .  66 One of three parts, paired with MS 142 and 144; not clear whether 142 is based on PD.  67 One of three parts, paired with MS 141 and MS 142; not clear whether 142 is based on PD.

a  ha n dl i s t o f w i t n e s s e s to pau l t he d e aco n’s ho mi li ary

Paris, Bibliothèque Mazarine MS 396 (249) (Grands Carmes de Paris, s. xiiiex): Winter, abbreviated lessons for each day; PD mixed with various Carolingian texts.

Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France MS lat. 3805 (s. xiii): fols 1–136, PD homilies, winter and summer. MS lat. 3809 (s. xiii2/4): sanctorale, contains some PD, like other use of Cîteaux lectionaries/homiliaries. MS lat. 3814 (s. xiii and xiv): Lectionarium ad usum Cisterciense, temporale; contains some PD like other. MS lat. 3815 (Normandy (?), c. 1200): Lectionarium ad usum Cisterciense, pars aestivalis; contains some PD. MS lat. 12583 (Saint-Laurent-en-Bois (?), s. xiiiinc): chapter book, derived from Saint-Laurent’s version of the ‘great lectionary of Corbie’. MS lat. 13847 (Saint-Nicolas-de-Regny (?), s. xiiiinc): chapter book, derived from Saint-Nicolas’s version of the ‘great lectionary of Corbie’.

Paris, Bibliothèque Sainte-Geneviève MS 138 (Senlis, s. xiiiinc): summer homiliary, partly from PD. MS 141 (Montreuil-en-Caux, s. xiii or xiv): complete temporal homiliary. Base of PD, but daily provision augmented. Similarly to Bourges, MS 33. MS 142 (Senlis, s. xiii): fols 1r–98v, Advent to Quinquagesima; PD derived. Étaix considered it unique.

Reims, Bibliothèque Carnegie MS 299 (St Thierry, s. xiiimed): PD augmented. MSS 301, 302, 303 (St Remi, s. xiiiinc): PD shattered and augmented, lectionary of Cluny.

Rome, Biblioteca Vallicelliana MS B.5 (S Italy, s. xiii1/4): winter homiliary, PD derived, with various additions.

Saint-Omer, Bibliothèque d’Agglomération MS 185 (Notre Dame de Saint-Omer, s. xiii): fols 105–27, PD and Haymo for some Sundays after Pentecost (11–25).

Troyes, Médiathèque du Grand Troyes MS 1912 (s. xiii/xiv): PD shattered; Cistercian lectionary, portable with abbreviated lessons.

Udine, Biblioteca Capitolare Cap. 21 (c. 1243): Lent homiliary, PD derived with many additions.68

 68 See note above regarding BSB, Clm 14386 (s. ix).

293

2 94

a p p e n di x 5

Verdun, Bibliothèque du Grand Verdun MS 122 (Cathedral (?), s. xiiiinc): summer temporale and sanctorale; PD, except for ten entries in temporale; varied material for sanctorale.

Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek MS 1016 (Mondsee, s. xiii): Lent homiliary, PD derived with many additions.69



Manuscripts from the Fourteenth Century Alençon, Médiathèque de la Communauté Urbaine MS 128 (Saint-Evroul, s. xiv2/2): full-year homiliary, PD, Heiric for Lent.

Amiens, Bibliothèque Louis Aragon MS 151 (s. xiv): summer lectionary; PD shattered; Carthusian. MS 152 (Corbie, s. xiv): whole-year sanctoral lectionary of Corbie; PD augmented.

Basel, Öffentliche Bibliothek der Universität MS B.VII.2 (Basel, c. 1300): fourteenth-century PD fragments in margins of fols 12, 13, and 15 (GPD I:60, I:61, I:69).

Beaune, Bibliothèque municipale Gaspard Monge MS 8 (8) (Collegial Church of Beaune, s. xiv): summer lectionary and sanctorale; PD base.

Biberach, Spitalarchiv Cod. B 3534 (s. xivex): PD Advent to Sundays after Easter, augmented with Bede, Gregory, Augustine.

Cambrai, Médiathèque d’agglomération de Cambrai MS 582 (540) (s. xiv): fols 57–78v, winter homiliary drawn from PD; fols 78v–92v, summer homiliary from Haymo of Auxerre. MS 1285 (1152) (Guillelmites of Walincourt, s. xivinc): Cistercian type lectionary; PD base.

Exeter, Cathedral Library MSS 3504, 3505, 3505B (Exeter, s. xiv): Lectionary of Bp John de Grandisson, partly derived from PD.

Frankfurt am Main, Universitätsbibliothek Fragm. lat. X 57 (s. xiv): Fragment of PD II:105.

 69 See note above regarding BSB, Clm 14386 (s. ix).

a  ha n dl i s t o f w i t n e s s e s to pau l t he d e aco n’s ho mi li ary

Graz, Universitätsbibliothek MS 672 (s. xiv2/2): contains Epistola Generalis.

Laon, Bibliothèque municipale MS 313 (Notre Dame de Laon, s. xiv): Advent to Purification; PD.

Orléans, Médiathèque Gambetta MS 163 (140) (Fleury, s. xiv): pp. 519–52, Advent readings; PD shattered.70

Paris, Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal MSS 154–55 (Saint-Marcel de Chalon-sur-Saône, s. xiv): PD shattered and augmented; adaptation of Cluny’s lectionary. MS 474 (Grands Augustins (?), s. xiv): full year; a mix of AF, PD, Caesarius, and the sermonary of Beaune.

Paris, Bibliothèque Mazarine MS 398 (250) (Saint-Eloi de Paris, prior’s copy, c. 1342): abbreviated temporale for after Pentecost, sanctorale, and common of saints. Temporale largely PD.

Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France MS lat. 1738 (Milan, s. xiv): fols 226r–233v, extracts from PD.

Paris, Bibliothèque Sainte-Geneviève MS 118 (Saint-Sulpice de Montreuil-en-Caux, s. xiv): winter portion, using PD.

Reims, Bibliothèque Carnegie MS 504 (Notre-Dame de Maizières, s. xiv): fol. a. End of GPD II:98 and beginning of GPD II:99.

Rouen, Bibliothèque municipale classée Villon MS 265 (A 51) (Fécamp (?), s. xiv): full-year lectionary; base of PD, largely augmented by Heiric and Haymo of Auxerre.

Trier, Stadtbibliothek Hs. 189/1629 2° (Eberhardsklausen, s. xv2/2; prov.: ): PD summer portion. Hs. 219/1406 2° (Eberhardsklausen, s. xv2/2): fols 1–189r, PD winter portion with Epistola Generalis. Includes texts from homiliary of Ottobeuren. Paired with Hs. 189/1629 2°.

 70 The lectionary is pp. 519–24, 527–28, 525–26, 529–52. BnF, MS NAL 2335, fols 13–34 comprises pp. 553–96 of this manu­script.

295

296

a p p e n di x 5

Uppsala, Universitetsbibliotek MS C 171 (Bohemia/Moravia (?), s. xiv2/2): fols 53r–168r; homiliary from Advent to Easter; PD, AF, and others. MS C 260 (Vadstena (?), s. xiv1/2): fols 1r–29v; Lent homilies from PD, AF, and others. MS C 397 (Vadstena (?), s. xiv): fols 6v–72r; homilies from PD, AF, and others.



Manuscripts from the Fifteenth Century Amiens, Bibliothèque Louis Aragon MS 153 (Corbie, c. 1405): sanctoral matins book; PD base.

Augsburg, Universitätsbibliothek Cod. II.1.2° 126 (S Germany, s. xv): PD augmented with multiple sources, Smaragdus, Rabanus, Heiric, Haymo, and others.

Bamberg, Staatsbibliothek Msc. Patr. 71 (olim B.III.38) (Cistercian Abbey of Langheim, s. xv): PD joined to a copy of Gregory the Great’s Gospel Homilies; fols 109–269 are PD.

Berlin, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz MS Magdeb. 19 (Dominican Convent, Magdeburg (?), s. xv): fols 313r–403v, PD augmented, pars aestivalis. MS Magdeb. 44 (Dominican Convent, Magdeburg, s. xv): fols 4–30, PD augmented, pars hiemalis. MS theol. Fol. Lat. 613 (Central Germany, perhaps Leipzig, s. xv2/4): PD, full year, augmented with AF and Heiric.71

Bourges, La Bibliothèque patrimoniale MS 33 (Sainte-Chapelle de Bourges, c. 1404–16): lectionary for Advent to Trinity; PD augmented with Carolingian sermonary of Beaune.72

Cividale del Friuli (Udine), Museo Archeo­logico Nazionale, Biblioteca Capitolare MS VIII (s. xv): fragments on fols 143, 145.

Clermont-Ferrand, Bibliothèque du patrimoine MS 91 (Cathedral, s. xv): fols 1–54, Sundays after Easter to Pentecost, PD base.

 71 Summer portion similar to Frankfurt, MS Barth. 41.  72 Paired with MSS 34–36. These also might be PD augmented, but it is not noted in Étaix.

a  ha n dl i s t o f w i t n e s s e s to pau l t he d e aco n’s ho mi li ary

Co­logne, Historisches Archiv der Stadt Köln MS GB fol. 20 (Holy Cross, Co­logne, c. 1425): 1–141r, homiliary for sanctorale and commune sanctorum; texts drawn mostly from PD, along with Gregory, Bede, Haymo, and others, with passions of the saints. MS GB fol. 100 (Holy Cross, Co­logne, c. 1415 and later): 1–178v, summer homiliary; texts drawn from PD, Augustine, Ambrose, Gregory, Alcuin, Caesarius, Heiric, Odo of Cambrai, and others. MS GB quart 20 (Holy Cross, Co­logne, s. xv1/2 and xv3/4): fols 135r–200v, summer homiliary, texts from PD and many others (Rabanus, Haymo, Eusebius Gallicanus, rare texts of Augustine). MS GB quart 99 (Holy Cross, Co­logne, c. 1435x1440): fols 1r–81v, winter homiliary; texts from PD, along with Caesarius, Honorius, Chromatius, Faustus of Rietz; fols 105v–138v, summer homiliary; texts from PD, along with Augustine, Ps-Haymo.73

Darmstadt, Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek Hs. 371.3, fols 273r–284r (Sauerland (?), c. 1420): winter fragment; PD, AF, Ottobeuern.

Düsseldorf, Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek MS B.73, fols 171–85 (Düsseldorf, Kreuzherrenkonvent, c. 1435–40): fragments of PD entries for Christmas bound together in the fifteenth century with other material related to interpretation of the Apocalypse, Acts of the Apostles, other exegetical, and virtues and vices.

Florence, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana MS Pl. 18.6 (s. xv2/2): fragment on fols 190–193v.

Frankfurt am Main, Universitätsbibliothek Fragm. lat. IX 86 (Dominican Convent, Frankfurt, s. xvex): fragment of PD II:12. MS Barth. 97, fols 236r–295v (Heidelberg (?), s. xv2/4): homilies for temporale and sanctorale; PD shattered, with AF, Anselm, Rabanus, and others.74 MS Praed. 25. Paper. (Germany, 1455x1460): fols 73v–158v: winter homiliary; PD derived, augmented.75

Graz, Universitätsbibliothek MS 617 (s. xv1/2; prov.: Stift Neuberg); PD, winter portion; augmented. MS 1295 (Stift Neuberg, 1407): fols 204r–206v, and perhaps other texts.

 73 An interesting collection, combining many rare pieces and odd combinations, like other Holy Cross productions.  74 Part of a larger codico­logical unit of material for saying the Office and Nicholas of Lyra’s Postilla super evangelium.  75 Catalogue unclear; requires more information. Larger manu­script contains Gregory’s Homilies on the Gospel and numerous tracts from Jean Gerson and others.

297

298

a p p e n di x 5

Karlsruhe, Badische Landesbibliothek MS St Peter perg. 18 (Erfurt, c. 1400): winter homiliary, PD and AF; contains Epistola Generalis.

Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek Clm 14161 (Regensburg, Sankt Emmeram, s. xv4/4): fols 177–92, extracts from PD, in manu­script containing works of Bernard and Ps-Bernard of Clairvaux.

Oxford, Bodleian Library MS Lyell 77 (Padua, Santa Giustina, 1466): PD, winter portion, augmented with sermons of Bernard, Bede, Augustine, Jerome, Ps-Chrysostom, and passions of the saints.

Paris, Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal MS 548 (s. xv): Christmas to Easter; PD augmented for Lent. Like Vatican City, BAV, MS Vat. lat. 13013.

Paris, Bibliothèque Mazarine MS 399 (248) (Saint-Magloire de Paris, s. xvinc): fols 285r–293v, nine PD homilies for Easter and Pentecost. MS 400 (572) (Korsendonek, s. xv1/2): winter portion, PD augmented with Leo and Carthusian readings.76 MS 401 (16) (College of Cardinal Lemoine in Paris, s. xvex): festivals only. Lessons partly from PD. MS 695 (St Barbara’s, Co­logne, s. xv): winter volume; complete PD, augmented with Heiric for Lent. MS 697 (980) (Daventer, Pays-Bas, c. 1416): PD augmented for temporale, sanctorale, and common of saints.77

Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France MS lat. 3834 (France, s. xv2/2): homilies for the common of saints, material from PD.

Uppsala, Universitetsbibliotek MS C 577 (Leipzig (?), c. 1474): fols 119r–150r, within a collection of libelli; sermons from PD, AF, and others.

 76 Summer portion of Brussels 80–84 (cat. 1952).  77 Similar to Brussels 591–92 (cat. 1955), the third section of the fifteenth-century lectionary of Val-Saint-Martin de Louvain.

a  ha n dl i s t o f w i t n e s s e s to pau l t he d e aco n’s ho mi li ary

Valenciennes, Médiathèque municipale MS 221 (Canons regular, Schwabenheim near Bad Kreuznach, s. xv): PD winter portion, augmented with Caesarius and other rare pieces.78

Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek MS 4456, fols 5–81 (s. xv): Lent homiliary, PD derived with many additions.79

Weimar, Herzogin Anna Amalia Bibliothek Cod. fol. 17 (Archbishop of Prague, s. xv1/4; prov.: Erfurt, Kartause Salvatorberg): fols 2r–195r; full-year homiliary drawing on AF, PD, Ottobeuren, and New York City, Pierpont Morgan Library, MS M 17. Also related to the Bavarian homiliary (BAV, MS Pal. lat. 431 (B)). Cod. fol. max. 3 (Erfurt (?), c. 1400): fols 100r–227v, 244v–248v; homiliary drawing on PD and Vienna, MS 1616, with additions from Bede, Gregory, and Rabanus’s Commentaria in Mattheum.



Manuscripts from the Sixteenth Century Clermont-Ferrand, Bibliothèque du patrimoine MS 92 (Cathedral, s. xvi): copy of Clermont-Ferrand, MS 91’s fols 1–58; Sundays after Easter to Pentecost, PD base.

Trier, Stadtbibliothek Hs. 259/1150 4° (Eberhardsklausen, s. xvi1/3): summer homiliary, PD base.80

 78 Rare pieces for Lent also found in a Cistercian lectionary for the refectory in Hauterive, found in Fribourg, MS L 316.  79 See note above regarding BSB, Clm 14386 (s. ix).  80 Related to Hs. 189/1629 2°. Various rare texts (from, e.g., homiliary of Fleury).

299

Biblio­graphy

Manu­scripts Cited (PD) See Appendix 5



Manu­scripts Cited (non-PD) Autun, Bibliothèque municipale MS 184

Bamberg, Staatsbibliothek Msc. Jur.1

Berlin, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz Ms. Philipps 1676

Bern, Burgerbibliothek MS 289

Cambrai, Médiathèque d’agglomération de Cambrai MS 553

Cam­bridge, Fitzwilliam Museum MS 27

Cam­bridge, Uni­ver­sity Library Additional MS 3479 MS Ii.4.20

Chartres, Médiathèque l’Apostrophe MS 24

Co­logne, Dombibliothek MS 172

Darmstadt, Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek Hs. 1948

Lucca, Biblioteca Capitolare Feliniana MS 8

Lyon, Bibliothèque municipale MS 604 MS 788

302

bibl i o­gr ap h y

Metz, Stadtbibliothek MS 226

Mulhouse, Bibliothèque de l’Université de la Société Industrielle, Collection Armand Weiss no shelfmark

Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek Clm 14000

Oxford, Bodleian Library MS Laud. Misc. 126

Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France MS lat. 266 MS lat. 270 MS lat. 9451 MS NAL 1594

St Gall, Stiftsbibliothek CSG 18 CSG 20 CSG 50 CSG 54 CSG 267 CSG 339 CSG 347 CSG 359 CSG 367 CSG 387 CSG 413 CSG 422 CSG 428 CSG 728

Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana MS Ottob. lat. 261 MS Pal. lat. 50 MS Pal. lat. 555 MS Pal. lat. 1877 MS Reg. lat. 138 MS Reg. lat. 316

Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek MS lat. 1861

b i b li o­g raphy



Primary Sources (Editions and Translations) Acta Iohannis, Textus alii- Commentarius - Indices, ed. by E. Junod and J.-D. Kaestli, Corpus Christianorum, Series Apocryphorum, 2 (Turnhout, 1983) Admonitio Generalis, in Charlemagne: Translated Sources, trans. by P. D. King (Kendal, 1987), pp. 209–20 Ailerani: Interpretatio mystica et moralis progenitorum Domini Iesu Christi, ed. and trans. by A. Breen (Dublin, 1996) Alcuin, Adversus Elipandum Libri IV, in PL, 101:231–70 Alcuin, Contra Felicem Libri VII, in PL, 101:119–230D Alcuin, Epistulae, in MGH Epp., iv, ed. by E. Dümmler (Hannover, 1895), pp. 18–481 Alcuini vel Pauli Diaconi Homiliarum Doctorum (Co­logne, 1478) Annales Dorenses, in MGH SS, xxvii, ed. by G. Waitz (Hannover, 1885), pp. 514–31 Ardo Smaragdus, Vita Benedicti abbatis Anianensis et Indensis, in MGH SS, xv.1, ed. by G. Waitz (Hannover, 1887), pp. 198–220 Augustine, Enchiridion ad Laurentium, ed. by M. Evans, CCSL, 46 (Turnhout, 1969) Augustine, Ennarationes in Psalmos,  ed.  by J.  Dekkers, CCSL, 38–40 (Turnhout, 1956) Augustine, ‘Homilies on the Gospel of John’, trans. by J. Gibb and J. Innes, in St Augustine: Homilies on the Gospel of John; Homilies on the First Epistle of John; Soliloquies, ed. by P. Schaff, Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, 1.7 (Edinburgh, 1888; repr. Peabody, MA, 1995), pp. 7–452 Bede, Homeliae euangelii, ed. by D. Hurst, CCSL, 122 (Turnhout, 1955) Bede, Homilies on the Gospels, trans. by L. Martina and D. Hurst, CSS, 110–11, 2 vols (Kalamazoo, MI, 1991) Bede, In Lucae euangelium expositio, ed. by D. Hurst, CCSL, 119A (Turnhout, 1960), pp. 1–425 Bede, In Marci euangelium expositio, ed. by D. Hurst, CCSL, 119A (Turnhout, 1960), pp. 427–648 Benedict of Aniane: The Emperor’s Monk. Ardo’s Life, trans. by A. Cabaniss, CSS, 220 (Kalamazoo, 2008) Bernold of Constance, Chronicon, in MGH SS, v, ed. by G. Pertz (Hannover, 1844), pp. 385–540 Capitularia regum Francorum, ed. by E. Baluze, 2 vols (Paris, 1677) Cartulaire de l’abbaye de Cysoing et de ses dependances, ed. by I. de Coussemaker (Lille, 1885) Cassiodorus: Explanation of the Psalms, trans. by P. G. Walsh, 3 vols, Ancient Christian Writers, 51–53 (Mahwah, NJ, 1990) Catalogi bibliothecarum antiqui, vol. i: Catalogi saeculo xiii uetustiores, ed. by G. Becker (Bonn, 1885) Charlemagne: Translated Sources, trans. by P. D. King (Kendal, 1987) Chrodegang, Regula canonicorum, ed. by W. Schmitz (Leiden, 1889) Chronicon Benedictoburanum, in MGH SS, ix, ed. by G. H. Pertz (Hannover, 1851), pp. 212–38

303

3 04

bibl i o­gr ap h y

Chronique de l’abbaye de Saint-Riquier (ve siecle–1104), ed. by F. Lot (Paris, 1894) Codex epistolaris Carolinus, in MGH Epp., iii.1, ed. by W. Gundlach (Hannover 1892), pp. 476–657 Concilium Turonense, in MGH Conc., ii.1, ed. by A. Werminghoff (Hannover, 1908), pp. 286–93 Consuetudines monasticae, ed. by B. Albert, 5 vols (Stuttgart, 1900–1912) Dhuoda, Liber manualis, ed. and trans. by Marcelle Thiébaux, Cam­bridge Medi­eval Classics, 8 (Cam­bridge, 1998) Einhard, The History of the Translation of the Blessed Martyrs of Christ, Marcellinus and Peter, trans. by B. Wendell (Cam­bridge, MA, 1926) Einhard, Vita Karoli, in Two Lives of Charlemagne, trans. by L. Thorpe (Bungay, 1969), pp. 49–90 Encyclica de emendatione librorum et officiorum ecclesiasticorum, in MGH Leges, i, ed. by G. Pertz (Hannover, 1835), pp. 44–45 Epistola Generalis, in Capitularia regum Francorum, ed. by A. Boretius, MGH Leges, ii.1 (Hannover, 1883), pp. 80–81 Expositio antiquae liturgiae Gallicanae, ed. by E. C. Ratcliff, Henry Bradshaw Society, 98 (London, 1971) Florus of Lyon, Carmina, in MGH Poetae, ii, ed. by E. Dümmler (Hannover, 1884) pp. 509–66 Gesta sanctorum patrum Fontanellensis coenobii, ed. by F. Lohier and J. Laporte, Société de l’Histoire de Normandie (Rouen, 1935) Gregory the Great, Forty Gospel Homilies, trans. by D. Hurst, CSS, 123 (Kalamazoo, MI, 1990) Gregory the Great, Homelia in evangelia, ed. by R. Étaix, CCSL, 141 (Turnhout, 1999) Hincmar of Rheims, Statuta, in PL, 125:773–78C Homeliarius doctorum (Basel, 1493) Homeliarius doctorum (Nuremberg, 1494) Homiliae in totius anni evangelia ab Alcuino collectae, ed. by L. Sauer (Basel, 1569; 2nd edn, 1576) Homilie hoc est Conciones populares sanctissimorum ecclesie doctorum Hieronymi, Ambrosii, Augustini, Gregorii, Origenis, Ioannis Chrysostomi, Bede presbyteri, Maximi episcopi, et aliorum (Basel, 1516) Hrabani Mauri Opera exegetica, vol. iii: Apparatus fontium, ed. by Silvia Cantelli Berarducci (Turnhout, 2006) Leidrad of Lyon, Epistola ad Carolum, in MGH Epp., iv, ed. by E. Dümmler (Hannover, 1895), pp. 542–44 Leo the Great, The Letters and Sermons of Leo the Great, Bishop of Rome, trans. and introd. by C. L. Feltoe, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2.12 (Edinburgh, 1895; repr. Peabody, MA 1995) Leo the Great, Tractatus septem et nonaginta, ed. by A. Chavasse, CCSL, 138A (Turnhout, 1973) Liber pontificalis, ed. by L. Duchesne, 3 vols (Paris, 1886–1957) Maximus of Turin, Sermonum collectio antiqua, nonnullis sermonibus extravagantibus adiectis, ed. by A. Mützenbecher, CCSL, 23 (Turnhout, 1962)

b i b li o­g raphy

Maximus of Turin, The Sermons of St Maximus of Turin, trans. by B. Ramsey, Ancient Christian Fathers, 50 (New York, 1989) Maximus II, Homiliae, in PL, 57:221–530A Maximus II, Sermones, in PL, 57:531–760B MGH, Capit. episc., vol. iii, ed. by R. Pokorny (Hannover, 1995) MGH Diplomata Karolinorum, vol. i, ed. by E. Mühlbacher (Hannover, 1991) Mittel­alterliche Bibliothekskataloge Deutschlands und der Schweiz, ed. by P. Lehmann and others, 8 vols (Munich, 1949–53) Notker, Gesta Karoli, in Two Lives of Charlemagne, trans. by L. Thorpe (Kendal, 1987), pp. 91–172 Les Ordines romani du haut Moyen Âge, ed. by M. Andrieu, Spicilegium sacrum Lovaniense, Études et documents, 11, 23–24, 28–29, 5 vols (Louvain, 1931–61; repr. 1971–85) Origen, Origenes Werke, vols x–xii: Origenes Matthäuserklärung, ed. by E. Kloster­ mann with E. Benze, Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte, 38 and 40–41 (Leipzig, 1933–55) Paulinus of Aquileia, Contra Felicem libri tres, ed. by D. Norberg, Corpus Christia­ norum Continuatio Mediaevalis, 95 (Turnhout, 1990) Peter Chryso­logus: Selected Sermons, vol. iii, trans. by W. P. Palardy, Fathers of the Church, 110 (Washington, DC, 2005) Ps-Augustine, Legimus sanctum Moysen populo Dei, in PL, 39:2196–98 Ps-Bede, Homelia 70, in PL, 94:450B–452C Ps-John Chrysostom, Collectio Escurialensis, in PLS, 4 Rabanus Maurus, Epistolae, in MGH Epp., v, ed. by E. Dümmler (Munich, 1898–99), pp. 379–533 Ratpert: St Galler Klostergeschicthen (Casus Sancti Galli), ed. by H. Steiner, MGH SS, lxxv (Hannover, 2002) Receuil des chartes de l’abbaye de Saint-Benoît, ed. by M. Prou and A. Vidier (Paris, 1912) Riculf of Soissons, Statuta, in PL, 131:15–24 The Rule of Saint Benedict, ed. and trans. by B. L. Venarde (Cam­bridge, MA, 2011) Sigebert of Gembloux, Chrono­graphia, in MGH SS, vi, ed. by L. Bethmann (Hannover, 1844), pp. 300–374 Sigebert of Gembloux, De viris illustribus, in PL, 160:547A–588D Thegan, Vita Hludowici imperatoris, in MGH SS, ii, ed. by G. Pertz (Hannover, 1829), pp. 589–604 Theodulf of Orléans, Capitula, in MGH Capit. episc., i, ed. by P. Brommer (Hannover, 1984), pp. 103–72 Theudemar, Letter to Charlemagne, in The Rule of Saint Benedict, ed. and trans. by B. L. Venarde (Cam­bridge, MA, 2011), pp. 230–43 William of Tocco, Ystoria sancti Thome de Aquino de Guillaume de Tocco (1323), édition critique, introduction et notes, ed. by C. le Brun-Gouanvic, Studies and Texts, 127 (Toronto, 1996)

305

3 06

bibl i o­gr ap h y



Secondary Sources Airlie, S., ‘Bonds of Power and Bonds of Association at the Court of Louis the Pious’, in Charlemagne’s Heir: New Perspectives on the Reign of Louis the Pious (814–840), ed. by P. Godman and R. Collins (Oxford, 1990), pp. 191–204 Airlie, S., ‘The Palace of Memory: The Carolingian Court as Political Centre’, in Courts and Regions in Medi­eval Europe, ed. by S. R. Jones, R. Marks, and A. J. Minnis (Suffolk, 2000), pp. 1–20 Albers, B., ‘Eine Homiliensammlung Benedikts von Aniane?’, Studien und Mit­ teilungen zur Geschichte des Benediktinerordens, 32 (1911), 579–91 Alexander, J. S., ‘Criteria for Discerning Donatist Sermons’, in St Augustine and his Opponents: Papers Presented at the Thirteenth International Conference of Patristics Held in Oxford 1999, ed. by M. F. Wiles and E. J. Yarnold, Studia Patristica, 38 (Leuven, 2001), pp. 3–7 Amiet, R., ‘Un Comes carolingien inédit de la Haute-Italie’, Ephemerides Liturgicae, 73 (1959), 335–67 Amos, T. L., ‘Caesarius of Arles, the Medi­eval Sermon and Orthodoxy’, Indiana Social Studies Quarterly, 35 (1982), 11–20 Autenrieth, J., Die Handschriften der ehemaligen Hofbibliothek Stuttgart. Vol. III: Codices iuridici et politici (HB VI 1–139). Patres (HB VII 1–71). Die Hand­schriften der Württembergischen Landesbibliothek Stuttgart, ii, 3. (Wiesbaden, 1963). Bammel, C. P. H., Der Römerbrief des Rufin und seine Origenes-Übersetzung (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1985) Banham, D., and R. Faith, Anglo-Saxon Farms and Farming (Oxford, 2014) Barré, H., ‘Homéliaires’, in Dictionnaire de spiritualité, vol. vii: Hackman–Hypocrisie (Paris, 1968), cols 600–606 Barré, H., Les Homéliaires carolingiens de l’école d’Auxerre: Authenticité. Inventaire. Tableaux Comparatifs. Initia, Studi e Testi, 225 (Vatican City, 1962) Barrow, J., The Clergy in the Medi­eval World: Secular Clerics, their Families and Careers in North-Western Europe, c. 800–c. 1200 (Cam­bridge, 2015) Barth, K., Church Dogmatics, vol. i.2, ed. by G. W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance, trans. by G. T. Thomson and H. Knight (Edinburgh, 1956) Batiffol, P., The History of the Roman Breviary, trans. by A. M. Y. Baylay (London, 1898) Beever, D. E., and J. K. Drackley, ‘Feeding for Optimal Rumen and Animal Health and Optimal Feed Conversion Efficiency: The Importance of Physical Nutrition’, in Optimization of Feed Use Efficiency in Ruminant Production Systems: Proceedings of the FAO Symposium, 27 November 2012, Bangkok, Thailand, ed. by H. P. S. Makkar and D. Beever, FAO Animal Production and Health Proceedings, 16 (Rome, 2013), pp. 75–92 Behr, J., The Nicene Faith, 2 vols (Crestwood, NY, 2004) Belloni, A., and M. Ferrari, La biblioteca capitolare di Monza (Padova, 1974) Bernard, P., ‘Une courte histoire des rois de France de Charles le Chauve à Louis V’, Bibliothèque de l’école des chartes, 84 (1923), 257–64

b i b li o­g raphy

Bibliothèque nationale, Catalogue général des manuscrits latins, vol. vii: Nos 3776 à 3835: Homéliaires (Paris, 1988) Bierbrauer, K., Die vorkarolingischen und karolingischen Handschriften der Bayerischen Staatsbibliothek, 2 vols (Wiesbaden, 1990) Billett, J. D., The Divine Office in Anglo-Saxon England, 597–c. 1000, Henry Bradshaw Society Subsidia, 7 (Woodbridge, 2014) Billett, J. D., ‘The Liturgy of the “Roman” Office in England from the Conversion to the Conquest’, in Rome across Time and Space: Cultural Transmission and the Exchange of Ideas, c. 500–1400, ed. by C. Bolgia, R. McKitterick, and J. Osborne (Cam­bridge, 2011), pp. 84–110 Billett, J. D., ‘Sermones ad diem pertinentes: Sermons and Homilies in the Liturgy of the Divine Office’, in Sermo Doctorum: Compilers, Preachers, and their Audiences in the Early Medi­eval West, ed. by M. Diesenberger, Y. Hen, and M. Pollheimer, Sermo: Studies in Patristic, Medi­eval, and Reformation Preaching, 9 (Turnhout, 2013), pp. 339–73 Bischoff, B., ‘Bücher am Hofe Ludwigs des Deutschen und die Privatbibliothek des Kanzlers Grimalt’, in Bischoff, Mittel­alterliche Studien, iii (Stuttgart, 1981), pp. 187–212 Bischoff, B., ‘Die Hofbibliothek Karls des Großen’, in Karl der Große: Lebenswerk und Nachleben, vol. ii: Das geistige Leben, ed. by B. Bischoff (Düsseldorf, 1966), pp. 42–62; repr. with revisions in B. Bischoff, Mittel­alterliche Studien, iii (Stutt­gart, 1981), pp. 149–69; republ. English in B. Bischoff, Manu­scripts and Libraries in the Age of Charlemagne, trans. by M. M. Gorman (Cam­bridge, 1994), pp. 56–75 Bischoff, B., Katalog der festländischen Handschriften des neunten Jahrhunderts (mit Aus­nahme der wisigotischen), ed. by B. Ebersberger, Veröffentlichungen der Kom­mis­sion für die Herausgabe der mittel­alterlichen Bibliothekskataloge Deutsch­lands und der Schweiz, 4 vols (Wiesbaden, 1998–2017) Bischoff, B., ‘Die Kölner Nonnenhandschriften und das Skriptorium von Chelles’, in Bischoff, Mittelalterliche Studien, i (Stuttgart, 1965), pp. 17–35 Bischoff, B., Lorsch im Spiegel seiner Handschriften, Münchener Beiträge zur Mediävistik und Renaissance-Forschung (Munich, 1974) Bischoff, B., and J. Hoffmann, Libri sancti Kyliani: Die Würzburger Schreibschule und die Dombibliothek im viii. und ix. Jahrhundert (Würzburg, 1952) Bloch, H., Monte Cassino in the Middle Ages, 3 vols (Cam­bridge, MA, 1986) Boodts, Shari, ‘Les Sermons d’Augustin dans la bibliothèque de Florus: Perspectives comparatistes avec la Collectio ex dictis XII Patrum’, in Les Douze Compilations Pauli­niennes de Florus de Lyon: Un carrefour des traditions patristiques au ixe siècle, ed. by Pierre Chambert-Protat, Franz Dolveck, and Camille Gerzaguet, Collec­tion de l’École Française de Rome, 524 (Rome: 2017), pp. 197–211 Bouhot, J. P., ‘Deux exemplaires de l’homéliaire des Sancti catholici Patres’, Revue d’Études Augustiniennes et Patristiques, 19 (1973), 287–302 Bouhot, J. P., ‘L’Homéliaire des Sancti catholici Patres: Reconstitution de sa forme originale’, Revue d’Études Augustiniennes et Patristiques, 21 (1975), 145–96

307

3 08

bibl i o­gr ap h y

Boyle, L., ‘Diplomatics’, in Medi­eval Studies: An Introduction, ed. by J. M. Powell, 2nd edn (Syracuse, NY, 1992), pp. 82–112 Brown, G., ‘The Carolingian Renaissance’, in Carolingian Culture: Emulation and Innovation, ed. by R. McKitterick (Cam­bridge, 1994), pp. 1–51 Bruce-Mitford, R. L. S., The Art of the Codex Amiatinus ( Jarrow, 1967) Bullough, D., ‘Charlemagne’s Court Library Revisited’, Early Medi­eval Europe, 12.4 (2003), 339–63 Buono, L., and E. Russo, eds, Homiliaria Beneventana I, Biblioteche e archivi, 36; Homiliaria et passionaria, Collezioni liturgiche del Medioevo latino, 1 (Florence, 2019) Butterworth, G. W., ‘Introduction’, in Origen: On First Principles, trans. by G. W. Butter­worth (Gloucester, MA, 1973), pp. xxiii–lviii Catalogue général des manuscrits des bibliothèques publiques de France. Départments (Paris, 1886–89) Cavadini, J. C., The Last Christo­logy of the West: Adoptionism in Spain and Gaul, 785–820 (Philadelphia, 1993) Chavasse, A., ‘Les plus anciens types du lectionnaire et de l’antiphonaire romains de la messe: Rapports et date’, RBen, 62 (1952), 1–91 Chazelle, C., The Crucified God in the Carolingian Era (Cam­bridge, 2001), pp. 55–59 Chesterton, C., Revised Calculation of Livestock Units for Higher Level Stewardship Agreements, Technical Advice Note 33, Rural Development Service, 2nd edn (London, 2006) Christ, K., Die Bibliothek des Klosters Fulda im 16. Jahrhundert: Die HandschriftenVerzeichnisse, Beiheft zum Zentralblatt für Bibliothekswesen, 64 (Leipzig, 1933) Claussen, M. A., The Reform of the Frankish Church: Chrodegang of Metz and the ‘Regula canonicorum’ in the Eighth Century, Cam­bridge Studies in Medi­eval Life and Thought, 4th Series, 61 (Cam­bridge 2004) Clayton, M., ‘Homiliaries and Preaching in Anglo-Saxon England’, Peritia, 4 (1985), 207–42 Codices latini antiquiores: A Palaeo­graphical Guide to Latin Manu­scripts prior to the Ninth Century, 11 vols plus Supplement (Oxford, 1935–71) Contreni, J. J., ‘Carolingian Biblical Studies’, in Carolingian Essays: Andrew W. Mellon Lectures in Early Christian Studies, ed. by U.-R. Blumenthal (Washing­ ton, DC, 1982), pp. 71–98; repr. in J. J. Contreni, Carolingian Learning, Masters and Manu­scripts (Brookfield, VT, 1992) Contreni, J. J., The Cathedral School of Laon from 850 to 930: Its Manu­scripts and Masters, Münchener Beiträge zur Mediävistik und Renaissance-Forschung, 29 (Munich, 1978) Costambeys, M., M. Innes, and S. MacLean, The Carolingian World (Cam­bridge, 2011) Crisp, O. D., Divinity and Humanity: The Incarnation Reconsidered (Cam­bridge, 2007) Cross, J. E., ‘“Legimus in ecclesiasticis historiis”: A Sermon for All Saints, and its Use in Old English Prose’, Traditio, 33 (1977), 101–35

b i b li o­g raphy

Cross, J. E., and J. Crick, ‘The Manu­script: Saint-Omer, Bibliothèque municipale, 202’, in Two Old English Apocrypha and their Manu­script Source, ed. by J. E. Cross and J. Crick, Cam­bridge Studies in Anglo-Saxon England, 19 (Cam­ bridge, 1996), pp. 10–35 Cross, R., The Metaphysics of the Incarnation: Thomas Aquinas to Duns Scotus (Oxford, 2002) Cruel, R., Geschichte der deutschen Predigt im Mittel­alter (Detmoldt, 1879) Curtius, E. R., European Literature and the Latin Middle Ages, trans. by W. R. Trask, Bollingen Series, 36 (Princeton, 1983) Dahn, F., Des Paulus Diaconus Leben und Schriften, Langobardische Studien, 1.1 (Leipzig, 1876) Davril, A., ‘Le Lectionnaire de l’Office à Fleury: Essai de reconstitution’, RBen, 89 (1979), 110–64 Dawson, D., Christian Figural Reading and the Fashioning of Identity (Berkeley, CA, 2001) DeGregorio, S., Innovation and Tradition in the Writings of the Venerable Bede (Morgantown, WV, 2011) de Jong, M, ‘Charlemagne’s Church’, in Charlemagne: Empire and Society, ed. by J. Story (Manchester, 2005), pp. 103–35 de Jong, M., ‘Exegesis for an Empress’, in Medi­eval Transformations: Texts, Power, and Gifts in Context, ed. by E. Cohen and M. de Jong, Cultures, Beliefs and Traditions, 11 (Leiden, 2001), pp. 69–100 de Jong, M., The Penitential State: Authority and Atonement in the Age of Louis the Pious, 814–840 (Cam­bridge, 2009) de Lubac, H., Medi­eval Exegesis, trans. by M. Sebanc and E. M. Macierowski, 3 vols (Grand Rapids, MI, 1998–2009) De Marinis, T., La Biblioteca napoletana dei re d’Aragona, 2 vols (Milan, 1947–52) Depreux, P., Prosopo­graphie de l’entourage de Louis le Pieux (780–840), Instrumenta, 1 (Sigmaringen, 1997) Diesenberger, M., ‘Introduction: Compilers, Preachers, and their Audiences in the Early Medi­eval West’, in Sermo Doctorum: Compilers, Preachers, and their Audiences in the Early Medi­eval West, ed. by M. Diesenberger, Y. Hen, and M. Pollheimer, Sermo: Studies in Patristic, Medi­eval, and Reformation Preach­ ing, 9 (Turnhout, 2013), pp. 1–24 Diesenberger, M., Predigt und Politik im frühmittel­alterlichen Bayern: Arn von Salzburg, Karl der Große und die Salzburger Sermones-Sammlung (Berlin, 2015) Diesenberger, M., Y. Hen, and M. Pollheimer, eds, Sermo Doctorum: Compilers, Preachers, and their Audiences in the Early Medi­eval West, Sermo: Studies in Patristic, Medi­eval, and Reformation Preaching, 9 (Turnhout, 2013) Dolbeau, F., ‘Naissance des Homéliaires et des passionnaires: Une tentative d’étude comparative’, in L’Antiquité tardive dans les collections médiévales: Textes et représentations, vie–xive siècle, ed. by S. Gioanni and B. Grévin, Collection de l’école Française de Rome, 405 (Rome, 2008), pp. 13–35

309

31 0

bibl i o­gr ap h y

Dolbeau, F., ‘La Transmission de la Prédication Antique de langue latine’, in Preach­ing in the Patristic Era: Sermons, Preachers, and Audiences in the Latin West, ed. by A. Dupont, S. Boodts, G. Partoens, and J. Leemans, New History of the Sermon, 6 (Leiden, 2018), pp. 31–58 Drobner, H. R., Lehrbuch der Patro­logie (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1994); repr. in English as The Fathers of the Church: A Comprehensive Introduction, trans. by S. S. Schatzmann, with new biblio­graphies by W. Harmless and H. R. Drobner (Peabody, MA, 2007) Duby, G., ‘Le Problème des techniques agricoles’, in Settimane di studio del Centro italiano di studi sull’alto medioevo, vol. xiii: Agricoltura e mondo rurale in Occidente nell’Alto Medioevo (Spoleto, 1966), pp. 267–83 Duby, G., Rural Economy and Country Life in the Medi­eval West, trans. by C. Postan (London, 1968) Dupont, A., S. Boodts, G. Partoens, and J. Leemans, eds, Preaching in the Patristic Era: Sermons, Preachers, and Audiences in the Latin West, New History of the Sermon, 6 (Leiden, 2018) Dutton, P. E., Charlemagne’s Mustache and other Cultural Clusters of a Dark Age (New York, 2004) Dutton, P. E., The Politics of Dreaming in the Carolingian Empire (Lincoln, NE, 1994) Engelmann, U., Reichenauer Buchmalerei: Initialen aus einem Lektionar des frühen 10. Jahrhunderts (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1971) Étaix, R., ‘Un florilège ascétique attribué indûment à Saint Benoît d’Aniane’, RBen, 88 (1978), 247–60 Étaix, R., ‘Le Grand Lectionnaire de Corbie’, in HPL, pp. 206–74 Étaix, R., ‘L’Homéliaire composé par Raban Maur pour l’empereur Lothaire’, Recherches Augustiniennes et Patristiques, 19 (1984), 211–40 Étaix, R., ‘L’Homéliaire d’Ebrardus retrouvé (Paris, B. N., lat. 9604)?’, Revue d’histoire des Textes, 8 (1978), 309–17 Étaix, R., ‘Un homéliaire quadragésimal du ixe siècle: Le MS 14836’, Scriptorium, 40 (1986), 3–15; repr. in HPL, pp. 605–17 Étaix, R., ‘Les Homéliaires patristiques du Mont Saint-Michel’, in Millénaire monastique du Mont Saint-Michel, vol. i: Histoire et vie monastique, ed. by J. Laport (Paris, 1967), pp. 399–415; repr. in HPL, p. 274–91 Étaix, R., Homéliaires patristiques latins: Recueil d’études de manuscrits médiévaux. Offert par la Faculté de théo­logie de Lyon à l’occasion de son départ à la retraite, Collection des études Augustiniennes, Série Moyen-Âge et temps modernes, 29 (Paris, 1994) Étaix, R., ‘Les Homélies capitulaires du codex Guta-Sintram (Strasbourg, Grand Séminaire MS 37)’, in Le Codex Guta-Sintram: Manuscrit 37 de la Bibliothèque du Grand Séminaire de Strasbourg (Lucerne, 1983), pp. 167–73; repr. in HPL, pp. 619–37 Étaix, R., ‘L’Homiliaire Cartusien’, Sacris Erudiri, 13 (1962), 67–112; repr. in HPL, pp. 59–104

b i b li o­g raphy

Étaix, R., ‘Les Homiliaires liturgiques de Saint-Thierry’, in Saint-Thierry: Une abbaye du vie au xxe siècle, actes du colloque international d’histoire monastique, Rimes-Saint-Thierry, 11 au 14 Octobre 1976, Association des amis de l’abbaye de Saint-Thierry (Saint-Thierry, 1979), pp. 147–58; repr. in HPL, pp. 293–306 Étaix, R., ‘Homiliaires wisigothiques provenant de Silos à la Bibliothèque National de Paris’, Hispania sacra, 12 (1959), 213–24; repr. in HPL, pp. 389–400 Étaix, R., ‘Le Lectionnaire cartusien pour le réfectoire’, Revue d’Études Augustiniennes, 23 (1977), 272–303; repr. in HPL, pp. 105–36 Étaix, R., ‘Le Lectionnaire de l’office à Cluny’, Recherches Augustiniennes et Patri­ stiques, 11 (1976), 91–150, repr. in HPL, pp. 137–99 Étaix, R., ‘Le Recueil de sermons compose par Raban Maur pour Haistulfe de Mayence’, Revue d’Études Augustiniennes, 32 (1986), 124–37 Étaix, R., ‘Le “Smaragde” de Cordoue et autres manuscrits apparentés’, Miscellània Litúrgica Catalana, 4 (1990), 13–27; repr. in HPL, pp. 401–15 Étaix, R., ‘Répertoire des homéliaires conservés en France (hors la Bibliothèque nationale)’, in HPL, pp. 3–58 Ewig, E., ‘Descriptio Franciae’, in Karl der Große: Lebenswerk und Nachleben, vol. i: Persönlichkeit und Geschichte, ed. by H. Beumann (Düsseldorf, 1965), pp. 143–77 Fassler, M., ‘Sermons, Sacramentaries, and Early Sources for the Office’, in The Divine Office in the Latin Middle Ages: Methodo­logy and Source Studies, Regional Developments, Hagio­graphy, ed. by M. E. Fassler and R. A. Baltzer (Oxford, 2000), pp. 15–47 Fischer, B., ‘Bibeltext and Bibelreform unter Karl dem Großen’, in Karl der Große: Lebenswerk und Nachleben, vol. ii: Das geistige Leben, ed. by B. Bischoff (Düssel­ dorf, 1966), pp. 156–216 Fox, M., ‘Alcuin the Exegete: The Evidence of the Quaestiones in Genesim’, in The Study of the Bible in the Carolingian Era, ed. by C. Chazelle and B. V. N. Edwards (Turnhout, 2003), pp. 39–60 Frantzen, A. J., ‘The Englishness of Bede, Then and Now’, in The Cam­bridge Companion to Bede, ed. by S. DeGregorio (Cam­bridge, 2010), pp. 229–42 Ganshof, F. L., ‘La Révision de la Bible par Alcuin’, Bibliothèque d’humanism et renaissance, 9 (1947), 7–20; repr. in F. L. Ganshof, The Carolingians and the Frankish Monarchy: Studies in Carolingian History, trans. by J. Sondheimer (Aberdeen, 1971), pp. 28–40 Ganz, D., ‘Book Production in the Carolingian Empire and the Spread of Caroline Minuscule’, in NCMH, ii, 786–808 Ganz, D., Corbie in the Carolingian Renaissance, Beihefte der Francia, 20 (Sigmaringen, 1990) Ganz, D., ‘Mass Production: Carolingian Bibles from Tours’, in The Early Medi­ eval Bible: Its Production, Decoration and Use, ed. by R. Gameson (Cam­bridge, 1994), pp. 53–62 Garrison, E., Early Italian Painting: Selected Studies, 2 vols (London, 1984) Garrison, E., Studies in the History of Medi­eval Italian Painting, 4 vols (1953–62; repr. London, 1993)

311

312

bibl i o­gr ap h y

Gatch, Milton McC., Preaching and Theo­logy in Anglo-Saxon England: Ælfric and Wulfstan (Toronto, 1977) Gerbert, M., Vetus liturgia Alemannica, 3 vols (Saint-Blois, 1776) Gill, M., ‘Converting Feed into Human Food: The Multiple Dimensions of Effi­ ciency’, in Optimization of Feed Use Efficiency in Ruminant Production Systems. Pro­ceedings of the FAO Symposium, 27 November 2012, Bangkok, Thailand, ed. by H. P. S. Makkar and D. Beever, FAO Animal Production and Health Proceedings, 16 (Rome, 2013), pp. 1–14 Glatthaar, M., ‘Zur Datierung der Epistola generalis Karls des Großen’, Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittel­alters, 66 (2010), 455–77 Glauche, G., Katalog der lateinischen Handschriften der Bayerischen Staatsbibliothek München: Die Pergamenthandschriften aus Benediktbeuern: Clm 4501–4663 (Wies­­ baden, 1994) Gleede, B., The Development of the Term Enupostatov from Origen to John of Damascus (Leiden, 2012) Gneuss, H., ‘Liturgical Books in Anglo-Saxon England and their Old English Termino­logy’, in Learning and Literature in Anglo-Saxon England: Studies Presented to Peter Clemoes on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday, ed. by M. Lapidge and H. Gneuss (Cam­bridge, 1985), pp. 91–141 Godden, M. R., ‘The Alfredian Project and its Aftermath: Rethinking the Literary History of the Ninth and Tenth Centuries’, Sir Israel Gollancz Memorial Lecture, Proceedings of the British Academy, 162 (2009), 93–122 Godden, M. R., ‘Pro­logues and Epilogues in the Old English Pastoral Care, and their Carolingian Models’, Journal of English and Germanic Philo­logy, 110.4 (Oct. 2011), pp. 441–73 Goldberg, E. J., Struggle for Empire: Kingship and Conflict under Louis the German, 817–876 (Ithaca, NY, 2009) Gorman, M., ‘The Commentary on Genesis of Claudius of Turin and Biblical Studies under Louis the Pious’, Speculum, 72 (1997), 279–329 Gorman, M., ‘The Encyclopedic Commentary on Genesis Prepared for Charle­ magne by Wigbod’, Recherches Augustiniennes, 17 (1982), 173–201 Grégoire, R., ‘L’Homéliaire cistercien du manuscrit 114 (82) de Dijon’, Cîteaux, Commentarii Cistercenses, 28 (1977), 133–205 Grégoire, R., Les Homéliaires du Moyen Âge: Inventaire et analyse des manuscrits, Rerum ecclesiasticarum documenta, Series maior, Fontes, 6 (Rome, 1966) Grégoire, R., Homéliares liturgiques médiévaux: Analyse de manuscrits, Studi medi­ evali, 12 (Spoleto, 1980) Guiliano, Z., ‘The Cross in (Pseudo-)Dionysius: Pinnacle and Pit of Revelation’, in Papers Presented at the Sixteenth International Conference on Patristic Studies Held in Oxford 2011, vol. xvi: From the Fifth Century (Greek Writers), ed. by M. Vinzent, Studia Patristica, 68 (Leuven, 2013), pp. 201–14 Guiliano, Z., ‘Holy Gluttons: Bede and the Carolingians on the Pleasures of Exegesis’, in Pleasure in the Middle Ages, ed. by N. Cohen-Hanegbi and P. Nagy, International Medi­eval Research, 24 (Turnhout, 2018), pp. 281–308

b i b li o­g raphy

Guiliano, Z., ‘Liturgical Marginalia in Scholarship and the Office Manu­scripts of Carolingian St Gall’, paper presented at the International Medi­eval Congress, Leeds, 8 July 2015 Guiliano, Z., ‘Patristic Allegorical Preaching as a Mimetic Techno­logy: An Exploration and Proposal’, in Preaching and the Theo­logical Imagination, ed. by Z. Guiliano and C. Partridge, Studies in Episcopal and Anglican Theo­logy (New York, 2014), pp. 77–104 Gullick, M., ‘How Fast Did Scribes Write? Evidence from Romanesque Manu­ scripts’, in Making the Medi­eval Book: Techniques of Production, ed. by L. L. Brownrigg (Los Altos Hills, CA, 1995), pp. 39–58 Gy, P.-M., ‘Collectaire, rituel, processionnal’, Revue des Sciences philosophiques et théo­logiques, 44 (1960), 441–69 Gy, P.-M., ‘Les Premiers Bréviaires de Saint-Gall (deuxième quart du xie s.)’, in Liturgie, Gestalt und Vollzug, Festschrift für Joseph Pascher, ed. by W. Dürig (Munich, 1963), pp. 104–13 Hall, T., ‘The Development of the Common of Saints in the Early English Versions of Paul the Deacon’s Homiliary’, in Anglo-Saxon Books and their Readers: Essays in Celebration of Helmut Gneuss’s Handlist of Anglo-Saxon Manu­scripts, ed. by T. Hall and D. Scragg (Kalamazoo, 2008), pp. 31–67 Hall, T., ‘The Early Medi­eval Sermon’, in The Sermon, ed. by B. Kienzle, Typo­logie des sources du Moyen Age Occidental, 81–83 (Turnhout, 2000), pp. 203–47 Hall, T., ‘Latin Sermons for Saints in Early English Homiliaries and Legendaries’, in The Old English Homily: Precedent, Practice, and Appropriation, ed. by A. J. Kleist, Studies in the Early Middle Ages, 17 (Turnhout, 2007), pp. 227–63 Halm, K., Catalogus codicum manu scriptorum Bibliothecae Regiae Monacensis, vol. iv: Catalogus codicum latinorum, pt 3: Clm 15121–21313 (Munich, 1878) Hammer, C. I., Jr., ‘Country Churches, Clerical Inventories and the Carolingian Renaissance in Bavaria’, Church History, 49.1 (March 1980), 5–17 Harper, J., The Forms and Orders of Western Liturgy from the Tenth to the Eighteenth Century: A Historical Introduction for Students and Musicians (Oxford, 1991) Häse, A., Mittelalterliche Bücherverzeichnisse aus Kloster Lorsch. Einleitung, Edition und Kommentar, Beiträge zum Buch- und Bibliothekswesen, 42 (Wiesbaden, 2002) Hauke, H., Katalog der lateinischen Fragmente der Bayerischen Staatsbibliothek München, vol. ii: Clm 29315–29520 (Wiesbaden, 2001) Hausmann, R., Die theo­logischen Handschriften der Hessischen Landesbibliothek Fulda bis zum Jahr 1600: Codices Bonifatiani 1–3. Aa 1–145 a (Wiesbaden, 1992) Heath, C., ‘Carolingian correctio: Bede and Paul the Deacon’, paper presented at the Twentieth International Medi­eval Congress, Leeds, 2 July 2013 Hen, Y., Culture and Religion in Merovingian Gaul, a.d. 481–751 (Leiden, 1995) Hen, Y., ‘Paul the Deacon and the Frankish Liturgy’, in Paolo Diacono: Uno scrittore fra tradizione longobarda e rinnovamento carolingio. Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi Cividale del Friuli—Udine, 6–9 maggio 1999, ed. by P. Chiesa (Udine, 2000), pp. 205–21

313

31 4

bibl i o­gr ap h y

Hen, Y., ‘The Romanization of the Frankish Liturgy’, in Rome across Time and Space: Cultural Transmission and the Exchange of Ideas, c. 500–1400, ed. by C. Bolgia, R. McKitterick, and J. Osborne (Cam­bridge, 2011), pp. 111–23 Hen, Y., The Royal Patronage of Liturgy in Frankish Gaul: To the Death of Charles the Bald (877), Henry Bradshaw Society Subsidia, 3 (London, 2001) Hen, Y., ‘Unity in Diversity: The Frankish Liturgy before the Carolingians’, in Unity and Diversity in the Church: Papers Read at the 1994 Summer Meeting and the 1995 Winter Meeting of the Ecclesiastical History Society, ed. by R. N. Swanson, Studies in Church History, 32 (Oxford, 1996), pp. 19–31 Hen, Y., and R. Meens, eds, The Bobbio Missal: Liturgy and Religious Culture in Merovingian Gaul (Cam­bridge, 2004) Herren, M., ‘Theo­logical Aspects of the Writings of Paul the Deacon’, in Paolo Diacono: Uno scrittore fra tradizione longobarda e rinnovamento carolingio. Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi Cividale del Friuli—Udine, 6–9 maggio 1999, ed. by P. Chiesa (Udine, 2000), pp. 223–35 Hesbert, R. ‘Les Séries d’Évangiles après la Pentecôte’, La Maison-Dieu, 46 (1956), 35–59 Hildebrandt, M. M., The External School in Carolingian Society, Education and Society in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, 1 (Leiden, 1992) Hill, J., ‘Ælfric and Haymo Revisited’, in Intertexts: Studies in Anglo-Saxon Culture Presented to Paul E. Szarmach, ed. by V. Blanton and H. Scheck, Arizona Studies in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, 24 (Tempe, AZ, 2008), pp. 331–43 Hill, J., ‘Ælfric and Smaragdus’, Anglo-Saxon England, 21 (1992), 203–37 Hill, J., ‘Ælfric, Leofric, and In Natale Plurimorum Apostolorum’, in Saints and Scholars: New Perspectives on Anglo-Saxon Literature and Culture in Honour of Hugh Magennis, ed. by S. McWilliams (Cam­bridge, 2012), pp. 112–42 Hill, J., ‘Ælfric’s Homily on the Holy Innocents: The Sources Reviewed’, in Alfred the Wise: Studies in Honour of Janet Bately on the Occasion of her Sixty-Fifth Birthday, ed. by J. Roberts and J. L. Nelson with M. Godden (Cam­bridge, 1997), pp. 89–98 Hill, J., ‘Ælfric’s Manu­script of Paul the Deacon’s Homiliary: A Provisional Analysis’, in The Old English Homily: Precedent, Practice, and Appropriation, ed. by A. J. Kleist, Studies in the Early Middle Ages, 17 (Turnhout, 2007), pp. 67–96 Hill, J., ‘Ælfric’s Sources Reconsidered: Some Case Studies from the Catholic Homilies’, in Studies in English Language and Literature: ‘Doubt Wisely’. Papers in Honour of E. G. Stanley, ed. by M. J. Toswell and E. M. Tyler (London, 1996), pp. 362–86 Hill, J., Bede and the Benedictine Reform ( Jarrow, 1998) Hill, J., ‘The Litaniae maiores and minores in Rome, Francia and Anglo-Saxon Eng­land: Termino­logy, Texts and Traditions’, Early Medi­eval Europe, 9.2 (2000), 211–46 Hill, J., ‘Translating the Tradition: Manu­scripts, Models and Methodo­logies in the Composition of Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies’ in Textual and Material Culture in Anglo-Saxon England: Thomas Northcote Toller and the Toller Memorial Lectures, ed. by D. Scragg (Manchester, 2003), pp. 241–59

b i b li o­g raphy

Hilliard, P., ‘The Venerable Bede as Scholar, Gentile and Preacher’, in Ego Trouble: Authors and their Identities in the Early Middle Ages, ed. by R. Corradini, M. Gillis, R. McKitterick, and I. van Renswoude (Vienna, 2008), pp. 101–09 Hoffmann, H., ‘Auto­grapha des früheren Mittel­alters’, Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittel­alters, 57 (2001), 1–62 Hoffmann, H., Buchkunst und Königtum im ottonischen und frühsalischen Reich. Text­ band, Schriften der Monumenta Germaniae Historica, 30.1 (Stuttgart, 1986) Inguanez, D. Maurus, Catalogi Codicum Casinensium Antiqui (saec. viii–xv), Mis­ cellanea Cassinese, 21 (Monte Cassino, 1941) Innes, M., ‘“A Place of Discipline”: Carolingian Courts and Aristocratic Youth’, in Court Culture in the Early Middle Ages: The Proceedings of the First Alcuin Conference, ed. by C. Cubitt, Studies in the Early Middle Ages, 3 (Turnhout, 2003), pp. 59–76 James, M. R. ‘The Manu­scripts of Bede’, Bede, his Life, Times and Writings, ed. by A. H. Thompson (Oxford, 1935), pp. 230–36 Janes, D., God and Gold in Late Antiquity (Cam­bridge, 1998) Jasper, R. C. D., and G. J. Cuming, eds and trans, Prayers of the Eucharist: Early and Reformed, 3rd edn (New York, 1980) Jeanes, G., ‘Cranmer and Common Prayer’, in The Oxford Guide to the Book of Common Prayer: A Worldwide Survey, ed. by C. Hefling and C. Shattuck (Oxford, 2006), pp. 21–38 Jenkins, C., ‘Bede as Exegete and Theo­logian’, in Bede, his Life, Times and Writ­ ings, ed. by A. H. Thompson (Oxford, 1935), pp. 152–200 Keefe, S., Water and the Word: Baptism and the Education of the Clergy in the Carolingian Empire, 2 vols (Notre Dame, 2002) Kelly, J. N. D., Early Christian Creeds, 3rd edn (London, 1950) Kendall, C., ‘The Responsibility of Auctoritas: Method and Meaning in Bede’s Commentary on Genesis’, in Innovation and Tradition in the Writings of the Venerable Bede, ed. by S. DeGregorio (Morgantown, WV, 2011), pp. 101–20 Kienzle, B., Hildegard of Bingen and her Gospel Homilies: Speaking New Mysteries (Turnhout, 2009) Koehler, W., and F. Mütherich, Die karolingischen Miniaturen, vol. v: Die Hofschule Karls des Kahlen (Berlin, 1982) Koen, L., ‘Partitive Exegesis in Cyril of Alexandria’s Commentary on the Gospel according to St John’, in Biblica et Apocrypha, Orientalia, Ascetica: Papers Presen­ ted at the Eleventh International Conference on Patristic Studies Held in Oxford 1991, ed. by E. A. Livingstone, Studia Patristica, 25 (Leuven, 1993), pp. 115–21 Koziol, G., The Politics of Memory and Identity in Carolingian Royal Diplomas: The West Frankish Kingdom (840–987), Utrecht Studies in Medi­eval Literacy, 19 (Turnhout, 2012) Koziol, G., ‘What Charles the Simple Told the Canons of Compiègne’, in Understanding Monastic Practices of Oral Communication (Western Europe, Tenth–Thirteenth Centuries), ed. by Steven Vanderputten, Utrecht Studies in Medi­eval Literacy, 21 (Turnhout, 2011), pp. 159–81

315

31 6

bibl i o­gr ap h y

Kron, G., ‘Archaeozoo­logical Evidence for the Productivity of Roman Livestock Farming’, Münstersche Beiträge zur antiken Handelsgeschichte, 21.2 (2002), 53–73 Lambot, C., ‘La Tradition manuscrite des sermons de saint Augustin pour la Noël et l’Épiphanie’, RBen, 77 (1967), 216–45 Lang, U. M., ‘Anhypostatos-enhypostatos: Church Fathers, Protestant orthodoxy and Karl Barth’, Journal of Theo­logical Studies, n.s., 49 (1998), 630–57 Langefeld, B., The Old English Version of the Enlarged Rule of Chrodegang: Edited Together with the Latin Text and an English Translation, Münchener Universitäts­schriften, Texte unde Untersuchungen zur Englischen Philo­logie, 26 (Frankfurt, 2003) Leclercq, J., ‘Tables pour l’inventaire des homiliaires manuscrits’, Scriptorium, 2 (1948), 205–14 Leroy, F.-J., ‘Les 22 inédits de la catéchèse donatiste de Vienne: Une édition provisoire’, Recherches Augustiniennes, 31 (1999), 149–234 Leroy, F.-J., ‘L’Homélie donatiste ignorée du Corpus Escorial (Chrysostomus Latinus, PLS IV, Sermon 8)’, RBen, 107 (1997), 250–62 Leroy, F.-J., ‘Vingt-deux homélies africaines nouvelles attribuables à l’un des anonymes du Chrysostome latin (PLS 4)’, RBen, 104 (1994), 123–47 Linsenmeyer, A., Geschichte der Predigt in Deutschland: von Karl dem Großen bis zum Ausgange des vierzehnten Jahrhunderts (Munich, 1886) Loeck, G., Die Homiliensammlung des Paulus Diakonus, die unmittelbare Vorlage des Otfridischen Evangelienbuchs (Kiel, 1890) Loveluck, C., Northwest Europe in the Early Middle Ages, c. ad 600–1150: A Comparative Archaeo­logy (Cam­bridge, 2013) Maag, N., ‘Zum sogenannten St Galler Wolfcoz-Evangelistar und dem Skriptorium der Reichenau unter Reginbert (+ 846)’, Zeitschrift für die Geschichte des Oberrheins, n.s., 122 (2013), 1–10 Mabillon, J., Vetera analecta, 4 vols (Paris, 1675, repr. Paris, 1723) Manitius, M., Geschichte der lateinischen Literatur des Mittel­alters (Munich, 1911) Marbach, J., Geschichte der deutschen Predigt vor Luther (Berlin, 1874) Martimort, A.-G., Les Lectures liturgiques et les livres, Typo­logie des Sources du Moyen Âge Occidental, 64 (Turnhout, 1992) Martin, L. T., ‘Bede and Preaching’, in The Cam­bridge Companion to Bede, ed. by S. DeGregorio (Cam­bridge, 2010), pp. 156–69 Martin, L. T., ‘The Two Worlds in Bede’s Homilies: The Biblical Event and the Lis­ tener’s Experience’, in De Ore Domini: Preacher and Word in the Middle Ages, ed. by E. A. Green, T. L. Amos, and B. M. Kienzle (Kalamazoo, MI, 1989), pp. 27–40 Martin, T., ‘Bemerkungen zur “Epistola de litteris colendis”’, Archiv für Diplomatik, 31 (1985), 227–72 Mayr-Harting, H., Ottonian Book Illumination: An Historical Study, 2 vols (New York, 1991) McCune, J., ‘The Preacher’s Audience, c. 800–c. 950’, in Sermo Doctorum: Compilers, Preachers, and their Audiences in the Early Medi­eval West, ed. by M. Diesenberger, Y. Hen, and M. Pollheimer, Sermo: Studies in Patristic, Medi­eval, and Refor­mation Preaching, 9 (Turnhout, 2013), pp. 283–338

b i b li o­g raphy

McKitterick, R., ‘Cam­bridge, Corpus Christi College MS 334 and its Implications: A Source for Paul the Deacon’s Homiliary’, in Sermo Doctorum: Compilers, Preachers, and their Audiences in the Early Medi­eval West, ed. by M. Diesenberger, Y. Hen, and M. Pollheimer, Sermo: Studies in Patristic, Medi­eval, and Reformation Preaching, 9 (Turnhout, 2013), pp. 187–201 McKitterick, R., ‘Carolingian Bible Production: The Tours’ Anomaly’, in The Early Medi­eval Bible: Its Production, Decoration and Use, ed. by R. Gameson (Cam­ bridge, 1994), pp. 63–77 McKitterick, R., ‘Carolingian Book Production’, The Library, 6th Ser., 12 (1990), 1–33; repr. as no. XII in R. McKitterick, Books, Scribes and Learning in the Frankish Kingdoms, 6th–9th Centuries (Aldershot, 1994) McKitterick, R., The Carolingians and the Written Word (Cam­bridge, 1989) McKitterick, R., Charlemagne: The Formation of a European Identity (Cam­bridge, 2008) McKitterick, R., ‘The Diffusion of Insular Culture in Neustria between 650 and 850: The Implications of the Manu­script Evidence’, in La Neustrie: Les Pays au nord de la Loire de 650 à 850, ed. by H. Atsma, Beihefte der Francia, 16.2 (Sig­ maringen, 1989), pp. 395–432; repr. as no. III in R. McKitterick, Books, Scribes and Learning in the Frankish Kingdoms, 6th–9th Centuries (Aldershot, 1994) McKitterick, R., The Frankish Church and the Carolingian Reforms, 789–895, Royal Historical Society Studies in History, 2 (London, 1977) McKitterick, R., The Frankish Kingdoms under the Carolingians, 751–987 (London, 1983) McKitterick, R., ‘Frauen und Schriftlichkeit im Frühmittel­alter’, in Weibliche Lebens­gestaltung im frühen Mittel­alter, ed. by H.-W. Goetz (Co­logne, 1991), pp. 65–118; repr. as no. XIII, ‘Women and Literacy in the Early Middle Ages’, in R. McKitterick, Books, Scribes and Learning in the Frankish Kingdoms, 6th–9th Cen­turies (Aldershot, 1994) McKitterick, R., History and Memory in the Carolingian World (Cam­bridge, 2004) McKitterick, R., ‘Migrations and the Written Word in the Early Middle Ages’, in Europa im Geflecht der Welt: Mittel­alterliche Migrationen in globalen Bezügen, ed. by M. Borgolte and others (Berlin, 2012), pp. 71–85 McKitterick, R., ‘Nuns’ Scriptoria in England and Francia in the Eighth Century’, Francia: Forschungen zur Westeuropäischen Geschichte, 19.1 (1992), 1–36; repr. as no. VII in Books, Scribes and Learning in the Frankish Kingdoms, 6th–9th Centuries (Aldershot, 1994) McKitterick, R., ‘The Palace School of Charles the Bald’, in Charles the Bald: Court and Kingdom, ed. by M. T. Gibson and J. L. Nelson, 2nd edn, BAR International Series, 101 (Aldershot, 1981), pp. 326–39 McKitterick, R., ‘Script and Book Production’, in Carolingian Culture: Emulation and Innovation, ed. by R. McKitterick (Cam­bridge, 1994), pp. 221–47 McKitterick, R., ‘The Scriptoria of Merovingian Gaul: A Survey of the Evidence’, in Columbanus and Merovingian Monasticism, ed. by H. B. Clarke and M. Brennan, BAR International Series, 113 (Oxford, 1981), pp. 173–207; repr. as no. I in R. McKitterick, Books, Scribes and Learning in the Frankish Kingdoms, 6th–9th Centuries (Aldershot, 1994)

317

31 8

bibl i o­gr ap h y

McKitterick, R., ‘Unity and Diversity in the Carolingian Church’, in Unity and Diversity in the Church: Papers Read at the 1994 Summer Meeting and the 1995 Winter Meeting of the Ecclesiastical History Society, ed. by R. N. Swanson, Studies in Church History, 32 (Oxford, 1996), pp. 59–82 Mittermüller, R., Expositio Regulae ab Hildemaro tradita (Regensburg, 1880) Mohrmann, C., ‘Praedicare–Tractare–Sermo: Essai sur la termino­logie de la prédi­ cation paléochrétienne’, La Maison-Dieu, 39 (1954), 97–107; repr. in C. Mohr­mann, Études sur le latin des chrétiens, 2nd edn, 4 vols (Rome, 1961–77), i (1961), 63–72 Mordek, H., Bibliotheca capitularium regum Francorum manu­scripta: Überlieferung und Traditionszusammenhang der Fränkischen Herrschererlasse (Munich, 1995) Morin, G., ‘Les Homélies latins sur S. Matthieu attribué à Origène’, RBen, 54 (1942), 3–11 Morin, G., ‘Les Leçons apocryphes du Bréviaire romain’, RBen, 8 (1891), 270–80 Morin, G., ‘Le Recueil primitif des homélies de Bède sur l’Evangile’, RBen, 9 (1892), 316–26 Morin, G., ‘Les Sources non identifiées de l’homéliare de Paul Diacre’, RBen, 15 (1898), 400–403 Muller, R. A., Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. 1520 to ca. 1725, 4 vols (Grand Rapids, MI, 1987–2003) Mützenbecher, A., ‘Zur Überlieferung des Maximus Taurinensis’, Sacris Erudiri, 6 (1954), 343–72 Nelson, J. L., ‘Aachen as a Place of Power’, in Topo­graphies of Power in the Early Middle Ages, ed. by M. de Jong and F. Theuws with C. van Rhijn, The Transformation of the Roman World, 6 (Leiden, 2001), pp. 217–41 Nelson, J. L., Charles the Bald (Harlow, 1992) Nelson, J. L., ‘Was Charlemagne’s Court a Courtly Society?’, in Court Culture in the Early Middle Ages: The Proceedings of the First Alcuin Conference, ed. by C. Cubitt, Studies in the Early Middle Ages, 3 (Turnhout, 2003), pp. 39–57 Nelson, J. L., ‘Women at the Court of Charlemagne: A Case of Monstrous Regi­ ment?’, in Medi­eval Queenship, ed. by J. C. Parsons (New York, 1993), pp. 43–61; repr. in J. L. Nelson, The Frankish World, 750–900 (London, 1996), pp. 223–42 Newton, F., The Scriptorium and Library at Montecassino, 1058–1105, Cam­bridge Studies in Palaeo­graphy (Cam­bridge, 1999) Noble, T. F. X., Images, Iconoclasm, and the Carolingians (Philadelphia, 2009) Oldfather, W. A., and F. G. Lough, ‘The Urbana MS of the Homiliarium of Paulus Diaconus’, Speculum, 6 (1931), 293–94 Orofino, G., I codici decorati dell’archivio di Monte Cassino, 4 vols (Rome, 1998) Palazzo, E., A History of Liturgical Books: From the Beginning to the Thirteenth Century, trans. by M. Beaumont (Collegeville, MN, 1998) Palmer, J. T., The Apocalypse in the Early Middle Ages (Cam­bridge, 2014) Parkes, H., The Making of Liturgy in Ottonian Germany: Books, Music and Ritual in Mainz, 950–1050 (Cam­bridge, 2015) Parkes, M. B., Their Hands before our Eyes: A Closer Look at Scribes. The Lyell Lectures Delivered in the Uni­ver­sity of Oxford, 1999 (Aldershot, 2008)

b i b li o­g raphy

Pelikan, J., The Growth of Medi­eval Theo­logy (600–1300), The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, 3 (Chicago, 1978) Pohl, W., ‘Paolo Diacono e la costruzione dell’identità longobarda’, in Paolo Dia­ cono: Uno scrittore fra tradizione longobarda e rinnovamento carolingio. Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi Cividale del Friuli—Udine, 6–9 maggio 1999, ed. by P. Chiesa (Udine, 2000), pp. 413–26 Pollheimer, M., ‘Hrabanus Maurus: The Compiler, the Preacher, and his Audience’, in Sermo Doctorum: Compilers, Preachers, and their Audiences in the Early Medi­eval West, ed. by M. Diesenberger, Y. Hen, and M. Pollheimer, Sermo: Studies in Patristic, Medi­eval, and Reformation Preaching, 9 (Turnhout, 2013), pp. 203–28 Prinz, F., ‘Schenkungen und Privilegien Karls des Großen’, in Karl der Große: Lebens­werk und Nachleben, vol. i: Persönlichkeit und Geschichte, ed. by H. Beumann (Düsseldorf, 1965), p. 488 Quasten, J., Patro­logy, 3 vols (Utrecht, 1950–60) Raaijmakers, J., The Making of the Monastic Community of Fulda, c. 744–c. 900, Cam­bridge Studies in Medi­eval Life and Thought, 4th series, 83 (Cam­bridge, 2012) Raftis, J. A., ‘Western Monasticism and Economic Organization’, Comparative Studies in Society and History, 3.4 ( July 1961), 452–69 Rand, E. K., Studies in the Script of Tours, Medi­eval Academy of America, 3–4, 2 vols (Cam­bridge, MA, 1929) Ranke, E., Das kirchliche Pericopensystem aus den ältesten Urkunden der Römischen Liturgie dargelegt und erläutert. Ein Versuch (Berlin, 1847) Ranke, E., ‘Zur Geschichte des Homiliariums Karls des Grossen: Eine litterarische Notiz’, Theo­logische Studien und Kritiken, 28 (1855), 382–96 Rankin, S., ‘Notker bibliothecarius’, in Medi­eval Cantors and their Craft, ed. by K. A.-M. Bugyis, M. E. Fassler, and A. B. Kraebel (Woodbridge, 2017), pp. 41–58 Ratti, A., ‘L’omiliario detto di Carlo Magno e l’omiliario di Alano di Farfa’, Rendiconti del R. Istituto Lombardo di scienze e letteratura, 2nd Ser., 33 (1900), 1–9 Ray, R., ‘Who Did Bede Think He Was?’, in Innovation and Tradition in the Writings of the Venerable Bede, ed. by S. DeGregorio (Morgantown, WV, 2011), pp. 11–36 Reed, R., Ancient Skins, Parchments and Leathers (London, 1972) Reynolds, R. E., ‘The Organisation, Law and Liturgy of the Western Church, 700–900’, in NCMH, ii, 587–621 Richards, M. P., ‘Texts and their Traditions in the Medi­eval Library of Rochester Cathedral Priory’, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, 78.3 (1988), i–xii and 1–129 Ristuccia, N., Christianization and Commonwealth in Early Medi­eval Europe: A Ritual Interpretation (New York, 2018), pp. 180–85 Rouse, R. H., and M. A. Rouse, ‘Statim invenire: Schools, Preachers, and New Attitudes to the Page’, in Renaissance and Renewal in the Twelfth Century, ed. by R. L. Benson and others (Cam­bridge, MA, 1982), pp. 201–28

319

3 20

bibl i o­gr ap h y

Ruaro, E., ‘God and the Worm: Twofold Otherness in Pseudo-Dionysius’ Theory of Dissimilar Images’, American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly, 82.4 (2008), 581–92 Salmon, P., L’Office divin au Moyen Âge: Histoire de la formation du bréviaire du xie au xvie siècle, Lex orandi, 43 (Paris, 1967) Schnell, B., ‘Das “Prüller Kräuterbuch”. Zu Überlieferung und Rezeption des ältesten deutschen Kräuterbuchs’, in Mittelhochdeutsch: Beiträge zur Überlieferung, Sprache und Literatur, ed. by R. Plate and M. Schubert (Berlin, 2011), pp. 282–94 Sirmond, J., Concilia antiqua Galliae, 2 vols (Paris, 1629) Smetana, C., ‘Ælfric and the Early Medi­eval Homiliary’, Traditio, 15 (1959), 163–204 Smetana, C., ‘Paul the Deacon’s Patristic Antho­logy’, in The Old English Homily and its Backgrounds, ed. by P. E. Szarmach and B. F. Huppé (Albany, NY, 1978), pp. 75–97 Sottocornola, F., L’anno liturgico nei sermoni di Pietro Criso­logo: ricerca storico-critica sulla liturgia di Ravenna antica (Ravenna, 1973) Spinks, B. D., Early and Medi­eval Rituals and Theo­logies of Baptism: From the New Testament to the Council of Trent (Aldershot, 2006) Staub, K. H., and others, eds, Die Handschriften der Hessischen Landes- und Hochschulbibliothek Darmstadt, 6 vols (Wiesbaden, 1979) Stella, F., ‘La poesia di Paolo Diacono: nuovi manoscritti e attribuzioni incerte’, in Paolo Diacono: Uno scrittore fra tradizione longobarda e rinnovamento carolingio. Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi Cividale del Friuli—Udine, 6–9 maggio 1999, ed. by P. Chiesa (Udine, 2000), pp. 551–76 Stone, R., Morality and Masculinity in the Carolingian Empire, Cam­bridge Studies in Medi­eval Life and Thought, 4th series, 81 (Cam­bridge, 2012) Suckale-Redlefsen, G., Die Handschriften des 8. bis 11. Jahrhunderts der Staatsbibliothek Bamberg, vol. i: Texte (Wiesbaden, 2004) Szarmach, P. E., ‘Vercelli Homily XIV and the Homiliary of Paul the Deacon’, Leeds Studies in English, n.s., 37 (2006), 75–87 Thomson, R. M., Descriptive Catalogue of the Medi­eval Manu­scripts in the Library of Peterhouse, Cam­bridge (Cam­bridge, 2016) Thomson, R. M., A Descriptive Catalogue of the Medi­eval Manu­scripts of Corpus Christi College Oxford (Cam­bridge, 2011) Tyrer, J. W., Historical Survey of Holy Week: Its Services and Ceremonial, Alcuin Club Collections, 29 (Oxford, 1932) van Bath, B. H. Slicher, The Agrarian History of Western Europe, a.d. 500–1850, trans. by O. Ordish (London, 1963) van Dijk, S. J. P., The Origins of the Modern Roman Liturgy (Westminster, MD, 1960) van Rhijn, C., Shepherds of the Lord: Priests and Episcopal Statutes in the Carolingian Period, Cultural Encounters in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, 6 (Turn­ hout, 2007) Verhulst, A., ‘Economic Organisation’, in NCMH, ii, 481–509 Vogel, C., Medi­eval Liturgy: An Introduction to the Sources, rev. and trans. by W. G. Storey and N. Krogh Rasmussen (Washington, DC, 1986)

b i b li o­g raphy

von Euw, A., Die St. Galler Buchkunst vom 8. bis zum Ende des 11. Jahrhunderts, 2 vols (St Gall, 2008) von Haiminsfeld, Melchior Goldast, (Collectio constitutionum imperialium, hoc est) DD. NN. Imperatorum Augustorum, Caesarum ac Regum S. Imperii RomanoTheutonici Recessus, Constitutiones, Ordinationes, Decreta …, vol. iii (Frankfurt, 1610) Waddell, C., ‘The Liturgical Dimension of Twelfth-Century Cistercian Preaching’, in Medi­eval Monastic Preaching, ed. by C. Muessig (Leiden, 1998), pp. 335–49 Waddell, C., ‘The Pre-Cistercian Background of Cîteaux’, in Goad and Nail, ed. by E. R. Elder, Studies in Medi­eval Cistercian History, 10 (Kalamazoo, 1985), pp.  109–32 Waddell, C., The Primitive Cistercian Breviary (Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz MS Lat. Oct. 402) with Variants from the ‘Bernardine’ Cistercian Breviary, Spicilegium Friburgense, 44 (Fribourg, 2007) Waddell, C., The Summer-Season Molesme Breviary: Troyes, Bibliothèque Municipale Manu­script 807, Cistercian Liturgy Series, 10 (Gethsemani Abbey, 1985) Wallach, L., ‘Charlemagne’s De litteris colendis and Alcuin: A Diplomatic-Historical Study’, Speculum, 26 (1951), 288–305 Ward-Perkins, B., The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilisation (Oxford, 2006) Werminghoff, A., ‘Reise nach Italien im Jahre 1901’, Neues Archiv, 27 (1902), 568–604 Weidmann, C., ‘Maximus of Turin: Two Preachers of the Fifth Century’, in Preaching in the Patristic Era: Sermons, Preachers, and Audiences in the Latin West, ed. by A. Dupont, S. Boodts, G. Partoens, and J. Leemans, New History of the Sermon, 6 (Leiden, 2018), pp. 347–72 Wickham, C., ‘European Forests in the Early Middle Ages’, in Settimane di studio del Centro italiano di studi sull’alto medioevo, vol. xxxvii.2: L’ambiente vegetale nell’alto medioevo (Spoleto, 1990), pp. 479–545 Wickham, C., ‘Pastoralism and Underdevelopment’, in Settimane di studio del Centro italiano di studi sull’alto medioevo, vol. xxxi.1: L’uomo di fronte al mondo animale nell’alto medieoevo (Spoleto, 1985), pp. 401–51 Wieck, R., Time Sanctified: The Book of Hours in Medi­eval Art and Life (New York, 1988) Wiegand, F., Das apostolische Symbol im Mittel­alter: Eine Skizze, Vorträge der theo­ logischen Konferenz zu Gießen, 21 (Gießen, 1904) Wiegand, F., Dogmengeschichte der alten Kirche (Leipzig, 1912) Wiegand, F., Dogmengeschichte des Mittel­alters und der Neuzeit (Leipzig, 1919) Wiegand, F., Erzbischof Odilbert von Mailand über die Taufe. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Taufliturgie im Zeitalter Karls des Grossen, Studien zur Geschichte der Theo­logie und der Kirche, 4 (Leipzig, 1899) Wiegand, F., Das Homiliarium Karls des Grossen auf seine ursprüngliche Gestalt hin untersucht, Studien zur Geschichte der Theo­logie und der Kirche, 1.2 (Leipzig, 1897) Wiegand, F., ‘Luther der deutsche Volksmann’, in Luthervorträge zum 400. Jahres­ tage der Reformation gehalten in Greifswald (Berlin, 1918), pp. 5–20. Wiegand, F., Die Stellung des apostolischen Symbols im kirchlichen Leben des Mittel­ alters, vol. i: Symbol und Katechumenat (Leipzig, 1899)

321

3 22

bibl i o­gr ap h y

Wiegand, F., ‘Ein Vorläufer des Paulus-Homiliars’, Theo­logische Studien und Kritiken, 75 (1902), 188–205 Wiles, M. F., The Spiritual Gospel: The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel in the Early Church (Cam­bridge, 1960) Wilmart, A., ‘Le Comes de Murbach’, RBen, 30 (1913), 25–69 Wilmart, A., ‘Membra disiecta’, RBen, 36 (1924), 131–36 Wilmart, A., ‘La Trinité des Scots à Rome et les notes du Vat. lat. 378’, RBen, 41 (1929), 218–30 Witt, R. G., The Two Latin Cultures and the Foundation of Renaissance Humanism in Medi­eval Italy (Cam­bridge, 2012) Woods, C., ‘Inmaculata, Incorrupta, Intacta: Preaching Mary in the Carolingian Age’, in Sermo Doctorum: Compilers, Preachers, and their Audiences in the Early Medi­eval West, ed. by M. Diesenberger, Y. Hen, and M. Pollheimer, Sermo: Studies in Patristic, Medi­eval, and Reformation Preaching, 9 (Turnhout, 2013), pp. 229–59 Wright, C., ‘The Palm Sunday Procession in Medi­eval Chartres’, in The Divine Office in the Latin Middle Ages: Methodo­logy and Source Studies, Regional Developments, Hagio­graphy, ed. by M. E. Fassler and R. A. Baltzer (Oxford, 2000), pp. 344–71



Unpublished Dissertations Amos, T. L., ‘The Origin and Nature of the Carolingian Sermon’ (unpublished PhD thesis, Michigan State Uni­ver­sity, 1983) Heath, C., ‘Narrative Structures in the Works of Paul the Deacon’ (unpublished PhD thesis, Uni­ver­sity of Manchester, 2012) Hendrix, J. M., ‘Liturgy for the Dead and the Confraternity of Reichenau and St Gall, 800–950’ (unpublished PhD thesis, Uni­ver­sity of Cam­bridge, 2007) Ling, S., ‘The Cloister and Beyond: Regulating the Life of the Canonical Clergy in Francia, from Pippin III to Louis the Pious’ (unpublished PhD thesis, Uni­ver­ sity of Leicester, 2016) McCune, J. C., ‘An Edition and Study of Select Sermons from the Carolingian Sermonary of Salzburg’ (unpublished PhD thesis, Uni­ver­sity of London, 2006) Ristuccia, N., ‘The Transmission of Christendom: Ritual and Instruction in the Early Middle Ages’ (unpublished PhD thesis, Uni­ver­sity of Notre Dame, 2013) van der Walt, A. G. P., ‘The Homiliary of the Venerable Bede and Early Medi­eval Preaching’ (unpublished PhD thesis, Uni­ver­sity College London, 1980)

b i b li o­g raphy

Websites Badische Landesbibliothek, Digitale Sammlungen, Binkley, P., ‘Medi­eval Calendar Calculator’, based on Handbook of Dates for Students of English History, ed. by C. R. Cheney, RHS Guides and Handbooks, 4 (London, 1945; repr. with corrections, 1981), [accessed September 2013] Chilonda, P., and J. Otte, ‘Indicators to Monitor Trends in Livestock Production at National, Regional and International Levels’, Livestock Research for Rural Development, 18.8 (2006), Article #117, e-codices ‑ Virtuelle Handschriftenbibliothek der Schweiz, Europeana Regia, Faculty of Mathematics, Universiteit Leiden, ‘Perpetual Easter Calculator’,

[accessed September 2013] Gallica: Bibliothèque numérique, Hildemar of Corbie, ‘Chapter 14: How Vigils Are Performed in the Feasts of the Saints’, trans. by Z. Guiliano, at The Hildemar Project, ed. by A. Diem and others, Manu­scripta Mediaevalia, Münchener DigitalisierungsZentrum, Digitale Bibliothek, ‘Vatikan, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Pal. lat. 1877’, Biblioteca Laureshamensis Digital, [accessed 2 May 2015]

323

Index of Manuscripts This index includes references to manuscripts discussed in the main text of the book, along with cross-references to descriptions in Appendix 5. If a manuscript only appears in Appendix 5, it is rarely mentioned here, for the sake of space.



Manuscripts of the homiliary of Paul the Deacon Angers, Médiathèque Toussaint MS 235 (226): 54, 56, 129, 157–61, 209, 233, 239, 242

Avignon, Archives Départementales MS 2.G.94: 205, 214, 233

Bamberg, Staatsbibliothek MS. Patr. 155 (B.I.3): 60, 107 n.  44, 129, 154–55, 231, 269

Basel, Öffentliche Bibliothek der Universität MS B.III.2: 76, 141, 158–60, 204, 219, 240, 269 MS B.IV.26: 142, 159, 208, 210, 219 n. 60, 221, 240 n. 129, 242 n. 136, 264 n. 1, 269 MS N.I.6, no. 10a-b: 233 n. 101, 274

Bloomington, Indiana State University, Lilly Library MS Poole 38: 56 n. 35, 159, 265, 274

Burgos, Cathedral Library MS 1: 60 n. 46, 270

Cambrai, Médiathèque de Cambrai MS 365: 59 n. 3, 159, 207, 233, 270 MS 546: 159, 208 n. 32, 210, 232 n. 99, 270

Cambridge, Peterhouse MS 130: 50, 55, 57 n. 36, 59 n. 40, 251, 284

Cambridge, University Library MS Kk.4.13: 277, 279

Chartres, Médiathèque l’Apostrophe MS 57: 60, 107 n. 44, 233 n. 99, 270

3 26

i n de x o f m an u s c r i p t s

Cologny, Fondation Martin Bodmer CB 128: 60, 63, 129, 143, 154–55, 209 n. 35, 219–21, 227 n. 81, 232, 270, 273 n. 21

Cordoba, Cathedral Library MS 1: 60 n. 46, 270

Darmstadt, Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek Hs. 523: 54, 56 n. 35, 59 n. 38, 159, 210, 227 n. 81, 223 n. 101, 270 n. 13, 271

Detroit, MI, Detroit Public Library MS 1: 56, 159, 265, 274

Douai, La Bibliothèque Marceline Desbordes-Valmore Frags. in MSS 47 + 306 + 344 (?) + 345: 232 n. 99, 275 Frags. in MSS 255 + 275 + 314: 232 n. 99, 275

Durham, Cathedral Library MS B.II.2: 157, 159, 278 MS A.III.29: 278

Düsseldorf, Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek MS K16:Z04/04A: 275

Eichstätt, Universitätsbibliothek Cod. St 461: 275

Freiburg im Breisgau, Universitätsbibliothek Hs. 483.6: 232 n. 99, 275 Hs. 1122.1: 107 n. 44, 232 n. 99, 275

Fulda, Hessische Landesbibliothek MS AA 12: 202 n. 14, 203, 232, 271

Graz, Steiermärkisches Landesarchiv Cod. 238: 272, 279 Cod. 894: 231 n. 93, 275

Graz, Universitätsbibliothek MS 672: 50, 251, 295

Hamburg, Museum für Kunst und Gewerbe No shelfmark: 151, 155, 232 n. 96, 275

Hereford, Cathedral Library MS O.III.1: 286

i nd e x o f manu scri pt s

Karlsruhe, Badische Landesbibliothek MS Aug. perg. 14: 24, 41, 45–48, 52, 76, 105, 201–02, 230, 232 n. 96, 271 MS Aug. perg. 15: 47, 59, 76, 201–02, 227, 271, 281 MS Aug. perg. 16: 56 n. 34, 143, 155, 159, 208 n. 32, 211, 221–24, 242 n. 136, 271 MS Aug. perg. 19: 46–48, 63, 71 n. 12, 154, 155, 216, 219–21, 227, 271 MS Aug. perg. 29: 46–48, 50–54, 56–59, 105–07, 143, 157–59, 209 n. 35, 218–19, 232, 239, 251, 271 MS Aug. perg. 37: 33 n. 70, 155, 159, 200, 211–12, 216, 221, 239, 271 MS Aug. perg. 91: 159, 242, 271 Fragment Aug. 83: 233, 275 MS St. Peter perg. 18: 50, 51, 55, 251, 298

Laon, Bibliothèque municipale Fragments in MS 468: 155, 232 n. 99, 275

Leiden, Bibliotheek der Rijksuniversiteit Voss. lat. F.4.A: 50–57, 157–59, 206–07, 225, 232 n. 99, 251ff, 275

Lincoln, Cathedral Library MS 142: 279, 286

Linz, Bundesstaatliche Studienbibliothek MS 612: 231, 275

London, British Library Additional MS 16960: 55–57, 213, 233 n. 101, 271 MS Royal 2.C.iii: 279

Los Angeles, University of California MS 2/IX/ITA: 56–57 n. 35, 159, 265, 274, 276

Manchester, John Rylands Library MS 12: 212, 227 n. 81, 230 n. 86, 233 n. 100, 239, 271

Montpellier, Faculté de Médicine MS H 59: 280, 283 n. 44, 290 n. 59

Monza, Biblioteca Capitolare MS g8/115: 48 n. 8, 50–52, 55, 57 n. 36, 59 n. 40, 251ff, 271

Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek Clm 4533: 24–27, 41, 45–48, 50–57, 121, 128–29, 157–60, 209 n. 35, 231–32, 242, 251ff, 271 Clm 4534: 24–27, 41, 45–48, 50, 59–63, 71 n. 12, 128–29, 154–56, 160, 209 n. 35, 231–32, 271

327

3 28

i n de x o f m an u s c r i p t s

Clm 6264a: 60, 107 n. 44, 129, 154–55, 231, 269, 271 Clm 14380: 26 n. 43, 159, 231 n. 95, 272 Clm 14386: 202 n. 14, 203–05, 271, 272, 274 ns. 24, 25, 277 n. 28, 279 n. 34, 285 n. 50, 293 n. 68, 294 n. 69, 299 n. 79 Clm 17194: 50–52, 159, 205, 214, 225, 231 n. 95, 251ff, 272 Clm 29471 (1): 46, 151, 155, 232 n. 96, 275

New Haven, Yale University, Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library Marston MS 151: 56–57 n. 35, 159, 265, 274, 276

Oxford, Bodleian Library MS Laud. Misc. 157 (639): 202 n. 13, 281

Oxford, Corpus Christi College MS 255A: 50–51, 122, 233 n. 99, 251ff, 276

Oxford, Magdalen College MS 102: 50, 55, 57 n. 36, 59 n. 40, 251ff, 287

Orléans, Médiathèque Gambetta MS 38: 26 n. 43, 215–16, 272 MS 155: 214 n. 50, 281 MS 197: 213, 272 MS 341: 272

Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France MS lat. 1897: 60–62, 129, 154–56, 209 n. 35, 232–33 n. 99, 272 MS lat. 9604: 28, 60–62, 107 n. 44, 145, 154–56, 209 n. 35, 232 n. 99, 272 MS lat. 11699: 26 n. 43, 60–62, 129–32, 154–56, 209 n. 35, 232 n. 99, 272 MS lat. 12404: 26 n. 43, 60–62, 129–32, 154–56, 209 n. 35, 232 n. 99, 239–40, 242 n. 138, 272 MS lat. 16819: 50–54, 56 n. 35, 76, 81, 103 n. 37, 105, 137, 157–61, 208–09, 227, 235, 242 n. 137, 251ff, 272. MS NAL 2322: 41, 47, 60–63, 154–55, 208 n. 32, 209 n. 35, 232 n. 99, 239–40, 272

Paris, Bibliothèque Mazarine MS 695: 50–51, 55, 57, 59, 251

Reading, University Library MS St. George’s Guild: 60 n. 46, 282.

Reichersberg, Stiftsbibliothek no shelfmark: see entry for Graz, Steiermärkisches Landesarchiv, Cod. 894

i nd e x o f manu scri pt s

Reims, Bibliothèque Carnegie MS 116: 159, 214–15 n. 52, 232–33 n. 99 MS 296: 56 n. 34, 159, 207 n. 29, 214, 227 n. 82, 233 n. 99, 276

St Gall, Stiftsbibliothek CSG 423: 153 n. 77, 216, 240–41, 273 CSG 425: 240 n. 130, 273 CSG 426: 215, 273 CSG 430: 56 n. 34, 57–59, 107, 141–42, 159–60, 204–05, 219 n. 60, 239–42, 248 n. 2, 273 CSG 431: 105 n. 43, 141–42, 144 n. 63, 159–60, 204–05, 221, 241 n. 134, 273 CSG 432: 60, 62–63, 129, 141–42, 154–56, 204, 208 n. 32, 209 n. 35, 219–21, 239–40, 273 CSG 433: 107, 141–42, 155, 208, 213, 239–42, 273 CSG 434: 62 n. 49, 82, 107, 141–42, 155, 204–05, 212, 221, 239–42, 273

Saint-Omer, Bibliothèque d’Agglomération MS 202: 39, 41, 157, 159, 180, 210, 232 n. 99, 239–40, 273

Stuttgart, Württembergische Landesbibliothek MS HB VII 57: 142, 159, 210, 216, 221, 235, 240, 264 n. 1, 273

Troyes, Mediathèque du Grand Troyes MS 159: 60, 107 n. 44, 129–32, 154–55, 209 n. 35, 227 n. 82, 233 n. 100, 239–42, 274

Tulln, Stadtarchiv Cod. 18: 140, 283

Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana MS Ottob. lat. 106: 60 n. 46, 63, 76, 127 n. 15, 148–49, 153 n. 77, 208 n. 32, 274 MS Pal. lat. 428: 140, 283 MS Pal. lat. 429: 140, 283 MS Vat. lat. 1278: 148, 202–03 n. 14, 272 n. 17, 274 MS Vat. lat. 8562: 50–52, 55, 57 n. 36, 59 n. 40, 63, 158, 251ff, 283 MS Vat. lat. 8563: 26 n. 43, 59, 155, 283

Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek MS 1557: 203 n. 14, 272 n. 17, 274

Wolfenbüttel, Herzog August Bibliothek Fragments in Cod. Helmst 365: 107 n. 44, 233 n. 101, 276

Worcester, Cathedral Library MS F 92: 283, 286 n. 53

329

330

i n de x o f m an u s c r i p t s

Other Manuscripts Autun, Bibliothèque municipale MS 184: 234

Berlin, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz Ms. Philipps 1676: 24

Bern, Burgerbibliothek MS 289: 234

Bamberg, Staatsbibliothek Msc. Jur.1: 211

Cambrai, Médiathèque d’agglomération de Cambrai MS 553: 82

Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum MS 27: 241

Cambridge, University Library Additional MS 3479: 54, 206–07 MS Ii.4.20: 217

Chartres, Médiathèque l’Apostrophe MS 24: 69 n. 7

Cologne, Dombibliothek MS 172: 142, 169, 208

Darmstadt, Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek Hs 1948: 211, 221

Lucca, Biblioteca Capitolare Feliniana MS 8: 69 n. 7

Metz, Stadtbibliothek MS 226: 94

Mulhouse, Bibliothèque de l’Université de la Société Industrielle Collection Armand Weiss, no shelfmark: 241

Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek Clm 14000: 62

i nd e x o f manu scri pt s

Oxford, Bodleian Library MS Laud. Misc. 126: 94

Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France MS lat. 266: 62 MS lat. 270: 53 MS lat. 9451: 69 n. 7, 76, 80, 82 MS NAL 1594: 206

St Gall, Stiftsbibliothek CSG 18: 241 CSG 20: 219 CSG 50: 62 CSG 54: 62 CSG 267: 140–42 CSG 339: 241 CSG 347: 80 CSG 359: 241 CSG 367: 219 CSG 387: 241 CSG 413: 240 CSG 422: 142, 169, 208 CSG 428: 240 CSG 728: 140–42

Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana MS Ottob. lat. 261: 127 MS Pal. lat. 50: 62 MS Pal. lat. 555: 234 MS Pal. lat. 1877: 110 MS Reg. lat. 138: 26 MS Reg. lat. 316: 78

Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek MS lat. 1861: 223

331

General Index Aachen: 53–54, 95–96, 112–13, 126, 137, 147, 149, 156, 226, 236–37, 249 gathering of scholars at: 98, 120, 228, 247–48 Ælfric of Eynesham: 20, 32–33, 35–39, 200 Admonitio Generalis: 29, 34, 42, 73, 94, 120–21, 126, 164, 174–97 (passim), 200 Alcuin Bible correction: 98 n. 26, 119–20, 135 n. 33 catechesis and theology: 175, 195–96 Christological controversies: 182–83 and Paul’s homiliary: 22–23, 175, 208–09, 211, 217, 270, 272, 286, 291, 297 as Church Father: 209, 211, 217, 270, 272, 286, 291, 297 Ambrose of Milan in Carolingian libraries: 110–13 texts in PD original: 54, 68, 101–02, 107–09, 126, 211, 245 augmented or ‘shattered’ witnesses: 267, 279–80, 290, 297 Ansegis: 136, 138, 151, 228–29 Augustine of Hippo filioque and Paul’s homiliary: 176, 181, 246 in Carolingian libraries: 110–13, 138 texts in PD original: 47–48, 68, 92, 101–02, 104, 107–38, 163, 165 n. 13, 169, 173, 196, 213, 214, 215, 217, 245, 259 augmented or ‘shattered’ witnesses: 47–48, 55, 63, 80, 201–02, 204, 205–07, 208, 221, 265, 266–68, 269–99 (passim) Ps-Augustine in PD, original: 168, 176, 180–81 inc. n. 49, 196, 208 Ps-Augustine in PD, augmented or ‘shattered’ witnesses: 47, 273, 279–90 Bede, the Venerable in Carolingian libraries: 110–13, 138, 144–45 texts in PD original: 47–48, 59, 63, 65, 71, 107–09, 162, 153, 156–58, 164–65, 196, 216, 245 augmented or ‘shattered’ witnesses: 47–48, 63, 201–02, 204, 208, 211, 214, 216, 248–49, 269–71, 274, 279–80, 282–83, 286, 289–91, 294, 297–99 and Paul the Deacon: 92, 113, 165 n. 13 Reformation assessment of: 183 n. 61 status as Church Father/saint/teacher: 105, 108–09, 126, 153–54, 225 theological influence in PD: 163–99 (passim), esp. 165–67, 169, 176–77, 181–84, 187, 191–92, 195–96, 245

334

gen er a l i n dex

Benedictine Reforms, England: 38 Benediktbeuern, Abbey of library: 110–11, 137–38 patronage of Charlemagne: 25 PD witnesses (genuine): 46, 232, 275 relation to Clm 4533 and 4534: 25–27, 41, 46, 242, 271 breviaries manuscripts: 215–16, 217, 240–41, 284, 286, 289, 291 excluded from consideration: 41, 48 relation to PD: 30–31, 48, 103, 240–41, 245, 264, 266, 268 Cambrai Cathedral connection to Reichenau and St Gall: 159–61 PD witnesses: 58–59 n. 38, 148–50, 159–62, 207 n. 29, 208 n. 32, 211, 232–33 n. 99, 270, 277, 284 Charlemagne chapels of: 53–54, 95–96, 125, 137, 147 and Homiliary of Paul the Deacon Intentions for: 19, 92–02, 247–48 patronage: 98, 116–18, 130, 140, 150–51, 227, 246 remembered for: 19 library of: 112–13 and liturgy: 95–96, 98, 126, 227, 237–38, 246 and orthodoxy: 23, 28, 96, 192, 246–47 piety, religious life: 95–99, 120, 126, 236–37, 247 and preaching: 23, 28, 29–30, 126, 174–75 and reform/correctio: 19, 21, 23, 29–30, 33–35, 98–99, 120, 126 Charles the Bald and Compiègne: 37, 53–54, 123, 137 and manuscripts: 53, 62 Charles the Fat: 248–49 Charles the Simple: 53, 242 n. 139 Chrodegang of Metz Regula canonicorum and homiliaries: 233–35, 237 Church Fathers in Paul’s homiliary: 101–10 see Ambrose, Augustine, Bede, Eusebius of Caesarea, Eusebius Gallicanus, Fulgentius, John Chrysostom, Leo, Maximus of Turin, Maximus II, and Origen in Carolingian Libraries: 110–16

g enera l index

clergy life of: 95 n. 19, 125–26, 233–34, 236 and Night Office: 95, 99, 126, 135, 236–37, 245 role as teachers and preachers: 34–35, 77–79, 174–75, 230–31 use of patristic homilies: 102, 127, 231, 233, 245 commemoration of the dead: 79–80 Corbie Abbey and homiliary manuscripts: 266–68, 277, 282, 284, 286–89, 294 library: 110–12 and Paul the Deacon: 113–14, 119–20 Daily Office/Divine Office collects, Trinitarian: 176 monasticism: 36, 80, 266 observance lay: 236–38 priestly: 233–35, 237, 266 PD and Cursus of, Nocturns of: 56, 124, 214, 236, 238–42 readings of: 96, 99–100, 107, 168, 238 De litteris colendis: 29, 94, 174 Eberhard of Friuli and gifts of Paul’s homiliary: 145, 146, 151, 226 Einhard: 137, 228, 236, 237 n. 118 Epistola Generalis edition of: 255–56 interpretation of: 19–20, 22, 28–32, 94–01 nature of: 28–32, 94–95 transmission of: 51, 94, 251, 256 translation of: 257 Eschatology: 188–92 Eusebius of Caesarea in Carolingian libraries: 110–13 texts in PD original: 108–09, 245 Eusebius Gallicanus texts in PD original: 108 augmented or ‘shattered’ witnesses: 47, 201, 280–82, 285, 297

335

336

gen er a l i n dex

fasting instruction in PD: 196 occasions: 74–76 feasts in PD, Christological and sanctorale: 67–74 Freising PD witnesses: 49, 60, 107 n. 44, 129, 154–55, 231 n. 93, 269, 275, 281 Fulgentius of Ruspe in Carolingian libraries: 110–13, 138 texts in PD original: 108–09, 245 augmented or ‘shattered’ witnesses: 214, 269, 270, 286, 290 Gregory the Great in Carolingian libraries: 110–13, 138, 144 texts in PD original: 54–55, 68, 72, 79, 89 n. 66, 101, 107–09, 126, 138, 144, 163–67, 169 n. 25, 170 n. 28, 176–77, 179–81, 185–96, 216, 245, 248, 259 augmented or ‘shattered’ witnesses: 38, 47, 201, 205, 208, 210, 216–17, 248, 264, 266, 270–71, 273–74, 277–80, 282, 285, 287, 290–91, 294, 296–97, 299 rejection of, at Reformation: 23 requirement to own Homeliae in evangelia: 127 Hadrianum: see sacramentaries Haymo of Auxerre texts in PD, augmented or ‘shattered’ witnesses: 55, 146, 208–09, 282, 290–97 use of PD: 226, 228 Heiric of Auxerre texts in PD, augmented or ‘shattered’ witnesses: 23, 146, 169, 283, 291–92, 294–98 use of PD: 226, 228–29 Hildemar of Corbie: 73–74, 103, 228, 238 homiliaries (other) collections, Carthusian: 20, 266–67, 294, 298 collections in cathedrals, Continental: 59, 148–51, 157, 159, 202 n. 14, 203, 207 n. 29, 208 n. 32, 232 n. 99, 233–34, 236, 240, 264, 247, 266 n. 6, 270–72, 277, 278, 281–82, 284–85, 289–92, 294, 296, 299 collections, cathedrals, English: 20 n. 4, 217, 240, 278, 279, 283, 286, 292, 294 collections, Cistercian and related: 20, 266–67, 277, 284, 285, 287, 289, 290–94, 296, 299 n. 78

g enera l index

collections, Cluny and related: 266–67, 278, 284, 287, 289, 291, 292, 293, 295 collections, noble and noble gifts of: 138, 145, 146 n. 71, 151, 226 collections, Rabanus Maurus: see Rabanus Maurus collections, royal: 20, 53–54, 76, 81, 96, 103 n. 37, 140, 203–05, 247, 272ff ‘grand lectionary of Corbie’: 266–67, 282, 286, 288–89, 293 homiliary of Alan of Farfa: 25–26, 35, 100, 104, 105, 109, 202, 205, 214, 268, 272, 296 homiliary of Saint Mihiel: 54–55, 206–07, 214, 270, 276 Sancti Catholici Patres: 264, 267, 290–91 St Gall comes homiliary: 142, 208 homiliary genre definition: 20–22 production and landed wealth: 127–37 uses: 29–32, 199–43 see Clergy, Daily Office/Divine Office, Preaching homiliary of Paul the Deacon and Carolingian elites: 138, 151, 228–29, 247–49 circulation, Carolingian: 123, 151–61 contents: 50–52, 107–10, Appendices 1–4 creeds and instruction: 68, 77–79, 174–75, 178–80, 221 n. 65 date of composition: 42, 83–84, 118–22 dissemination evidence for: 123–61 extent: 49, 148–49 (tables), 150 (map), 159–62 speed: 132–37 emphases, doctrinal: 174ff, 196–97 and exegesis of Gospels: 164–68, 196–97 and exegesis, allegorical: 32–33, 168–73, 192–96, 200, 223, 246 and history of scholarship: 19–39, 61–62, 82 influence: 19–20, 23, 30–39, 199–43 (passim), 246, 266 knowledge of: 19–22, 24, 228–29, 266–68 layout and organisation of, mise-en-page: 103–07 and monasticism: 148–50 manuscript witnesses of cost: 127–37 decoration and design: 103–07, 153–54, 158, 203, 208–09, 211, 217–25, 272 n. 18 marginalia: 227–30, 236, 239–43 number of witnesses: 41, 245 principal witnesses for reconstruction: 50–56, 59–60 production and size: 128–31, 235, 264 n. 1 see also Manuscript Index

337

338

gen er a l i n dex

homiliary of Paul the Deacon (cont.) and Patristic tradition: 19, 100, 108–09, 126, 173, 195–96, 206, 209 places known, owned, produced: 149–50 political material in: 171–72 and Reformation: 20, 23, 246, 266, 268 sources of: 107–10 structure of, liturgical Temporale: 52–70 Sanctorale: 52–66, 70–74 study of: 225–30 Theology of: 163–96, 245–46 Christ: 181–88 eschatology: 188–92 ethics: 192–96 God the Trinity: 174–81 Scripture: 168–73 homilies and sermons distinction: 164–68 Jerome in Carolingian libraries: 110–13, 138 texts in PD original: 63, 68, 101–02, 107–09, 126, 138, 163, 245 augmented or ‘shattered’: 47–48, 55, 201–02, 204, 208, 212 n. 44, 214 n. 51, 217 John Chrysostom in Carolingian libraries: 110–13, 138 texts in PD original: 108–09, 245 augmented or ‘shattered’ witnesses: 266, 268, 269, 282, Ps-John in original: 26, 63, 75, 79, 108–09, 164, 168, 171–72, 247 n. 1 Ps-John in augmented or ‘shattered’ witnesses: 247 n. 1, 266, 269, 272, 280, 290 n. 60, 298 lectionaries diversity: 56, 60–62, 69, 80–81, 161 integrated lectionaries, biblical, hagiographical, patristic: 264, 266–68, 269, 277, 278, 280, 282, 284–96, 298 n. 77, 299 n. 78 relation to PD and homiliaries: 20, 23–24, 28, 31, 42, 60–62, 69, 76, 82, 166, 168, 238, 241 systems for Sundays after Pentecost: 69–70, 80–83

g enera l index

Leo the Great in Carolingian libraries: 110–13, 138 PD and the Tome of Leo: 165–66, 181, 187 texts in PD original: 68, 75, 101, 107–09, 138, 163, 167–68, 173, 176, 181, 185, 187, 190, 196, 200, 245, 259 augmented or ‘shattered’: 32, 38, 47, 55 n. 29, 201–02, 264, 269, 274, 280, 281, 298 Ps-Leo in augmented or ‘shattered’ witnesses: 204 n. 22, 279–80 Lorsch Abbey: 62, 93 n. 11, 97 n. 25, 140–41, 143, 144, 147, 149, 160, 209, 283 library holdings: 110–12, 139–40 Louis the Pious: 136, 138, 226, 228, 247–48 Louis the German court of: 76, 141, 203, 228, 248–49 homiliary at court of: 76, 203 Maximus of Turin in Carolingian libraries: 107–13 and the collection Sancti Catholici Patres: 264, 267 n. 9, 290–91 texts in PD original: 57, 68, 107–09, 171–73, 195–96, 200, 245, 259, 276, augmented or ‘shattered’ witnesses: 32, 38, 204, 267, 272, 280 ‘Maximus II’ in Carolingian libraries: 107–13 and the collection Sancti Catholici Patres: 264, 267 n. 9, 290–91 texts in PD original: 57, 68, 71, 79, 107–13, 164–66, 168, 176–77, 178–79, 189–90, 215, 227, 245, 267 n. 9 augmented or ‘shattered’ witnesses: 32, 38, 267, 270, 282 theology of: 163–97 (passim) Notker the Stammerer: 140, 204, 212–13, 219 n. 64, 229, 237–39, 248–49, 273 n. 22 Origen in Carolingian libraries: 110–13 texts in PD original: 59, 108–09, 138, 156, 176, 184–88, 245 augmented or ‘shattered’ witnesses: 204, 206, 278, 280, 290, evaluation of sanctity and teaching in PD: 105, 156–58 Otfrid of Weißenburg: 146, 229

3 39

34 0

gen er a l i n dex

Paul the Deacon authorship and authority: 19, 38, 91, 100, 117–18 date of death: 122 homiliary composition of: 91–22 intentions for: 92–03, 121, 182–83, 186, 188, 196–97, 199, 236 and Monte Cassino: 61, 73, 82, 93, 112–13, 116–22, 145, 148 orthodoxy: 96, 185–86, 247 patronage: 100, 116–18, 130 poetry: 51, 91–94, 114, 119, 121–22, Appendices 1 and 4 practice, editing: 113–16 travel: 113–16 relationship with Charlemagne: 100, 120–21, 257 prayer for the dead: 79–80 instruction in PD: 196 litanies, greater and lesser: 76–77 liturgical see Daily Office/Divine Office preaching, early medieval canons, legislation, and use of patristic homilies: 28–36, 230–34 content: 32–33, 170, 200, 201–31 see also homiliary of Paul the Deacon legislation and manuscript evidence: 199, 234–35 PD used for: 199–200, 230–35 Rabanus Maurus as Church Father: 208–09 production of homiliaries: 103, 140, 169, 225 texts in PD, augmented or ‘shattered’ witnesses: 208–09, 264, 272, 286, 289, 296, 297, 299 use of PD: 145 n. 68, 225, 228–29 Reichenau Abbey decoration of manuscripts: 49, 218–25 see Manuscript Index homiliaries: 23–26, 41, 45–46, 60, 63, 80, 106–07, 128–29, 136, 143, 148, 158–60, 219–24, 232, 239, 242, 270–71, 283 see Manuscript Index library: 111–12, 140, 143

g enera l index

sacramentaries relation to PD: 38, 42, 69, 75, 77, 81, 126 Smaragdus of Saint-Mihiel and Anglo-Saxon England: 37–39 Expositio libri comitis and PD: 20, 169, 270, 273, 282–83, 286, 290, 296 St Bertin Abbey PD witness: 156–57, 210, 240 St Calixtus Abbey: 145 St Gall library catalogues and PD witnesses: 140–42 decoration of manuscripts: 203, 218–25 homiliaries: 140–42, 154, 158–60, 203–05, 219–24, 232 see Manuscript Index St Germain d’Auxerre PD witness: 145, 272 St Wandrille PD among its books: 111, 137–38, 151 Theudemar, abbot of Monte Cassino: 42, 73–74, 93–94, 101, 117–22, 144–45 n. 64 Tours Bibles: 125, 130, 132–33 149, 217 production of homiliaries: 26 n. 43, 28, 41, 60, 62, 107 n. 44, 128–30, 217, 232–33 n. 99, 239, 272 see Manuscript Index writing speeds estimates: 133–34 and mass production: 132–37

3 41

SERMO

All volumes in this series are evaluated by an Editorial Board, strictly on academic grounds, based on reports prepared by referees who have been commissioned by virtue of their specialism in the appropriate field. The Board ensures that the screening is done independently and without conflicts of interest. The definitive texts supplied by authors are also subject to review by the Board before being approved for publication. Further, the volumes are copyedited to conform to the publisher’s stylebook and to the best international academic standards in the field.

Titles in Series Ruth Horie, Perceptions of Ecclesia: Church and Soul in Medieval Dedication Sermons (2006) A Repertorium of Middle English Prose Sermons, ed. by Veronica O’Mara and Suzanne Paul, 4 vols (2007) Constructing the Medieval Sermon, ed. by Roger Andersson (2008) Alan John Fletcher, Late Medieval Popular Preaching in Britain and Ireland: Texts, Studies, and Interpretations (2009) Kimberly A. Rivers, Preaching the Memory of Virtue and Vice: Memory, Images, and Preach­ing in the Late Middle Ages (2010) Holly Johnson, The Grammar of Good Friday: Macaronic Sermons of Late Medieval England (2012) The Last Judgement in Medieval Preaching, ed. by Thom Mertens, Maria Sherwood-Smith, Michael Mecklenburg, and Hans-Jochen Schiewer (2013) Preaching the Word in Manuscript and Print in Late Medieval England: Essays in Honour of Susan Powell, ed. by Martha W. Driver and Veronica O’Mara (2013) Preaching and Political Society: From Late Antiquity to the End of the Middle Ages / Depuis l’Antiquité tardive jusqu’à la fin du Moyen Âge, ed. by Franco Morenzoni (2013)

Sermo Doctorum: Compilers, Preachers, and their Audiences in the Early Medieval West, ed. by Maximilian Diesenberger, Yitzhak Hen, and Marianne Pollheimer (2013) From Words to Deeds: The Effectiveness of Preaching in the Late Middle Ages, ed. by Maria Giuseppina Muzzarelli (2014) Yuichi Akae, A Mendicant Sermon Collection from Composition to Reception: The Novum opus dominicale of John Waldeby, OESA (2015) Siegfried Wenzel, The Sermons of William Peraldus: An Appraisal (2017) Miikka Tamminen, Crusade Preaching and the Ideal Crusader (2018) Christian, Jewish, and Muslim Preaching in the Mediterranean and Europe: Identities and Interfaith Encounters, ed. by Linda G. Jones and Adrienne Dupont-Hamy (2019)